Ok, he writes "Occam's Razor demands that when faced with two theories which both fit the facts, we must pick the simpler theory.”WILGA wrote:That's not true: Occam's RazorKirkSkywalker wrote:Actually, Mike Wong writes that Occam's Razor states that "we must accept the simplest explanation as the correct one."
But let's not quibble over semantics. Occam’s Razor just says that when two explanations are otherwise equal, the simpler one is more likely. To any schooled mathematician, this is just a common sense, based on simple extrapolation of mathematical probability-- which is simply the ratio of the number of actual outcomes, to the number of possible outcomes; and after all, the very etymology of the term “simpler,” means “having fewer factors—“ as opposed to “more complex,” meaning “having more factors.”
Therefore if all other things were equal, then a “simpler explanation,” just means one with fewer possible outcomes— and hence it is more likely. Get it?
That's right: Mike shouldn't quit his day-job to teach math.
Well it's more accurate to the way he means it-- which falls into accord with how SDN interprests most information with that same bias..Praeothmin wrote:It is facinating that he describes it well, but uses it as KirkSkywalker describes, with a slight variant:
"Occam's Razor say I'm right and you're wrong, dumba**!"
That's a little bit more accurate... :)
And if there's any need for more evidence, one could always click here on his "too much information" page-- where you'll see where his irrational obsession with "ship-size" and raw numbers originates... and that he's actually just suffering from Napoleonic syndrome (or in this case, a personal case of "BAM Envy," while he's been relegated to targeting "the small thermal exhaust-port less than 2mm wide" see the review-statements for “Reject” #2,3 and 4-- and “do the math”.
