Anyone who uses Ockham's razor as a justification for their

File: 1472231641239.jpg (139KB, 1000x1195px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1000x1195px

>>38370435
>ywn listen to Asuka's moaning as she pleasures herself
Why live

>>38370435
according to ockhams razor it would seem murder would be the least likely form of punishment

File: laughs.jpg (72KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 800x800px

>>38370486
>mixing up the law of parsimony with the law of proportionality

>>38370486
>>38370435

I don't think you understand what Ockham's razor is.

File: sas.jpg (202KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 1280x960px

Less philosophy, more lewd Asuka!

>>38370503
>>38370502
dealing with multiple explanations where the truth is unknown, """the simplest""" is the one to 'go with'.

Multiple explanations: multiple punishments, unknown what the best punishment is to fit the crime of using ockhams razor as justification for stance.

Murder is the simplest...maybe, maybe not, but it is not the most just.

Using ockhams razor; murder should not be the punishment for anyone who uses ockhams razor as a justification for their stance

According to ockhams razor

File: Asuka.jpg (75KB, 579x800px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 579x800px

>>38370666
welcome to death row

>>38370789
im just kidding, I feel the same way, always have hated ockham users

I mean there are cases when its obvious.. I mean.. its dumb to make a strict general rule that applies to ignorance, like each situation has its own clues and evidence in relation to certain knowledge and certain ignorance. But I guess for cases when one needs to take a leap of faith idk idk...

do you have any examples, specifically you heard lately?

File: 1499062904108.jpg (55KB, 452x362px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 452x362px

>make a stupid statement
>somebody calls you out on your bullshit
>you reference an obscure psychological phenomena and refuse to debate them

this is 90% of twitter, and it always seems to be muh ockham's razor or dunning kruger effect

>>38370666
>simplest is one to go with
I thought it was the most likely is the one to go with

File: buddies.jpg (79KB, 541x600px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 541x600px

>>38370835
The razor is fine if used correctly. But too many times I have seen people dismiss my well supported theories as "not the simplest".

You're not supposed to be using it as a shield to escape from critical thinking.

>>38370874
>>simplest is one to go with
>I thought it was the most likely is the one to go with

yeah, maybe a trouble of semantics/vernacular; simplest meaning 'most likely', with the least complications in relation to most likeliness.

"Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case, the simpler one is usually better. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is."

>>38370876
Do you have any examples of when it was used?
I mainly have encountered it discussing astronomy/theoretical physics, theories about the universe.

But have seen it used like: "omg I swear that napkin moved on its own"
"do you think it was a ghost, or the wind?"

>>38370938
yeah someone just pulled it on me the other day when I was working on an evangelion puzzle

>>38370876
This.
You should be prepared for the simple explanation, but when you are using that rule you are in a position where it is best to not take any 'stance' but to gather more information first if at all possible.

>>38370979
...go on... what did they say, what was the situation?

>>38371017

>>>/a/159783096

>>38370666
Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case, the simpler one is usually better. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is.

A person didn't come home last night. They were murdered isn't the simplest solution.

>>38370435
I agree. Occam's razor is a total cop out

>>38371132
Agreed it's all subjective. If I'm missing my wallet what I might come up with and what you may come up with are different.

>>38371074
well what is the evidence for your belief? And only the writers know the truth right?

So its hard to believe either way, but they can just find one thing that contradicts your theory? Or your theory can have some baseless/pointless assumptions anyway. I am not that familiar with the show in question but, it is very rare, for any show to have a "this one character, was really everyone the whole time", kind of like "maybe the whole movie was all a dream"

Is there any good reason/s to believe the writers intentionally thought that would be a good idea? an important meaningful part of the story?

Could they have left plot holes open so there can be multiple perspectives, interpretations?

how would the story be changed or enhanced if that was the case "ayyy it was all in his head the entire time"?

>>38371105
>A person didn't come home last night. They were murdered isn't the simplest solution.

A person didnt come home last night. Look at the statistics of "percentage of people that dont come home in a night who turns out they were murdered" vs "percentage of people that dont come home in a night who turns out they stayed at a friends place" vs. "percentage of people that dont come home in a night who turns out they were in a bad accident" etc...

but still it is just guesses and percentages

A person can look at the percentages and say to themselves "I will not believe my friend/child who did not come home last night was murdered, because odds are against it, so I will not pain myself with that worry"

I can tell myself the odds are they stayed at a friends house and their phone died

but really I dont know, its really about the odds game I guess

>>38371444
go watch evangelion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJuexdl_c5s

Ockham's razor is a decent way of figuring out something that's likely so you can prioritize examining that alternative since you will probably save time.

Even if it's the most likely alternative to be true, it's not nearly accurate enough.

>>38371550
I just read the summery, why do you think everyone is rei in disguise, what does that even mean?

" Rei self-destructs Unit-00 and dies to save Shinji's life. Misato and Shinji visit the hospital where they find Rei alive but claiming she is "the third Rei". Misato forces Ritsuko to reveal the dark secrets of Nerv, the Evangelion boneyard and the dummy plug system which operates using clones of Rei. These succession of events leave Shinji emotionally scarred, and alienate him from the rest of the characters. Kaworu Nagisa replaces the catatonic Asuka as pilot of Unit-02. Kaworu, who initially befriends Shinji and gains his trust, is in truth the final Angel, Tabris. Kaworu fights Shinji, then realizes that he must die if humanity is to thrive and asks Shinji to kill him. Shinji hesitates but eventually kills him. After the final Angel is defeated, Seele trigger the "Human Instrumentality Project", a forced evolution of humanity in which the souls of all mankind are merged together through Rei."

The souls of all mankind are merged together through Rei.

So that is why you think all the souls of mankind, are Rei?

>>38371762
no, I think she can masquerade as the dead. This is shown in a scene where you see Rei transform.

u guys r dumb lol