So I've heard this many time but I don't really understand

>>9102037
You're welcome.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/

>>9102037

brainlet

if you have to come up with more and more bullshit for your claim it is probably a wrong claim

>>9102037
the simplest solution is generally the best solution

>>9102037
Thanks, now i know another word for something that was obvious already

File: 1498949831949.gif (840KB, 500x650px) Image search: [Google]

840KB, 500x650px

>>9102037
Just what it says in your image. If you use fewer assumptions to explain something then it has a better chance to be correct. All it takes is for one assumption out of a bunch to be false and fuck over your explanation.

That said, Occam's Razor kind of mentions the quality of assumptions in an explanation. You can have 3 poorly thought out assumptions to an explanation and 10 well reasoned assumptions to an opposing explanation. It doesn't have to be the case that assumptions are on equal grounds or are equally valid.

parsimony

File: IMG_4195.jpg (99KB, 736x987px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 736x987px

>>9102133
This is the best answer....

File: IMG_2616.png (1MB, 1334x750px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1334x750px

>>9102037
Basically when presented with two or more solutions/hypothesis the one that assumes the least amount of things is usually right.


Thought it's shitty tool to use.

Occam's Razor is not an argument per se, but rather a criterion. It is only useful when presented with multiple equally strong theories, e.g. multiple theories that fit the data about as well as each other and have valid arguments going for them. In that case, Occam's Razor states that the simpler one is better, in that it is more likely to be true than the others, but not necessarily.

To illustrate:
It is the middle ages. You are confronted by a person who hears voices in his head which urge him to commit terrible acts. There are two possibilities before you:

1. The person is possessed by demons.
2. The person has some sort of disease affecting his mind.

Keep in mind that this is the middle ages, so your understanding of the mind is limited, and there is essentially no data available to show that one theory is more likely than the other. Occam's Razor, if applied, favors the second theory, because it has fewer ontological commitments, and is therefore simpler, than the first.

That is pretty much the use of Occam's Razor: when confronted with two equally strong theories, choose the simpler one, for it is more likely to be correct. However, this does NOT mean to choose the simpler theory when the more complicated one has more and better evidence in favor of it. Nor does it mean that when confronted with two equally strong theories, the more complex one is necessarily incorrect.

File: razor-wrist.jpg (24KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 480x360px

you know what to do

>>9102077
this is the best dumbed down concise version of occam's razor

>>9102053
>>9102077
>>9102086
>>9102133
>>9102186
Thanks lads!

>>9102190
Occam's razer says to choose the most conservative theory and to avoid anything new.

>>9103331
Lmao!

>>9102037
It is a heuristic that is often inaccurate.

Heuristics are decision making tools for when you have limited information.

The less bullshit, the more true.

This doesn't imply bullshit to be as deliberate lying, but has to do with estimations, assumptions, and theories. Solid fact will always work better than, well, less solid fact.

File: 6dlfOZP8.jpg (12KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 240x240px

>>9103861
Right on my G!!

File: goalbody.png (271KB, 500x580px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 500x580px

>>9102133
I always disliked the notion of "chance to be correct"
either a proof works or it doesnt.
indeed, a longer proof takes more time to review.
but if i come up with the longer proof first, then it takes more time to simplify.
Cockhams razour is in this particular case nothing but a means of sliding the workload from the reader to the writer.

>>9102133
Best answer

>>9102190
Wrong conclusion. In the Middle Ages, conepts of disease were non-existant or in their infancy. Concepts of demons etc were well established and religious a prioris were not questioned. For the Middle Ages questioner, Occam's Razor would favor demons.

>>9102077
Case in point: Flat Earth

>>9102037
>Occam's Fallacy
lmaoing @ ur life

>>9102133
>one assumption: God exists
>God did it

>>9102037
It's a tenet that theories & essays should be the most brief & clear possible.
>Why is it important?
For Saving time. Because our lifetime is short & We need to learn more in less time.

File: 1499044828671.jpg (86KB, 600x571px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 600x571px

>>9104060
>I always disliked the notion of "chance to be correct"
>either a proof works or it doesnt.
I understand where you are coming from but we aren't given the luxury of certainty at every turn. Sometimes assumptions or axioms, well reasoned or not, are all we have to work with. Look at something like the Riemann Hypothesis. It has yet to be proven true or false and yet other theorems assume that it is true. Whole works of mathematical logic are based on this assumption.

So what do we do? Are we supposed to wait until something is proven before seeing where the logic takes us? Realistically, that isn't a viable option because it leaves us empty handed. You are better off creating an assumption that doesn't contain foreseeable flaws or that isn't poorly thought out, to the best of your ability. From there, run with the logic and see what it creates. If the assumption is actually flawed then the logic will eventually get tangled up somewhere. AKA proof by contradiction.

File: IMG_4157.jpg (159KB, 734x1000px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 734x1000px

>>9104478
How kek!!!

>>9102037
The basic problem is that there's a literally infinite amount of models that make extraneous assumptions. Unwarranted assumptions* will almost certainly be false.

*such as the chocolate candybars that make up jupiters core

>>9102125
Here's another one: Parsimony

>>9102037
>mom walks in
>sees son quickly pulling up pants, holding peanut butter jar
>peanut butter jar has a cylinder shaped chunk missing

A: Son was masturbating with peanut butter
B: Son was eating peanut butter, tripped over something, and in mid air his pants were caught on his desk, pulling them down as the jar of peanut butter clashes open-end first onto dick

Occams Razor says A is probably what happened.

You "slice" away assumptions. "Cut" out information.

>>9107739
Lmao!!! This is magical!!! Ahahahahahahaahaha!!!!

>>9102037
KISS Principle > Occam's Razor

it annoys me when people cite Occam's razor in arguments. You can essentially simplify it to "the more probable hypothesis is more probable", oh wow good point.

>>9109203
WTF are u saying

>>9107739
was the example from personal experience? lol

>>9102037
it is likely that P(A) > P(B)*P(C) for most A, B, Cs

>>9110321
it's more like this:
A - one assumption
B - another assumption
P(A) >= P(A)*P(B)