Occam Would Have Made a Good Unitarian
Gene Douglas
of us.
Occam's razor
"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" or "plurality should not be
posited without necessity." The words are those of the medieval English
philosopher and Franciscan monk William of Ockham (ca. 1285-1349). Like many
Franciscans, William was a minimalist in this life, idealizing a life of
poverty, and like St. Francis himself, battling with the Pope over the
issue. William was excommunicated by Pope John XXII. He responded by writing
a treatise demonstrating that Pope John was a heretic.
What is known as Occam's razor was a common principle in medieval philosophy
and was not originated by William, but because of his frequent usage of the
principle, his name has become indelibly attached to it. It is unlikely that
William would appreciate what some of us have done in his name. For example,
atheists often apply Occam's razor in arguing against the existence of God
on the grounds that God is an unnecessary hypothesis. We can explain
everything without assuming the extra metaphysical baggage of a Divine
Being.
William's use of the principle of unnecessary plurality occurs in debates
over the medieval equivalent of psi. For example, in Book II of his
Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Abelard, he is deep in thought about
the question of "Whether a Higher Angel Knows Through Fewer Species than a
Lower." Using the principle that "plurality should not be posited without
necessity" he argues that the answer to the question is in the affirmative.
He also cites Aristotle's notion that "the more perfect a nature is the
fewer means it requires for its operation." This principle has been used by
atheists to reject the God-the-Creator hypothesis in favor of natural
evolution: if a Perfect God had created the Universe, both the Universe and
its components would be much simpler. William would not have approved.
He did argue, however, that natural theology is impossible. Natural theology
uses reason alone to understand God, as contrasted with revealed theology
which is founded upon scriptural revelations. According to Occam, the idea
of God is not established by evident experience or evident reasoning. All we
know about God we know from revelation. The foundation of all theology,
therefore, is faith. It should be noted that while others might apply the
razor to eliminate the entire spiritual world, Ockham did not apply the
principle of parsimony to the articles of faith. Had he done so, he might
have become a Socinian like John Toland (Christianity not Mysterious, 1696)
and pared down the Trinity to a Unity and the dual nature of Christ to a
single nature.
William was somewhat of a minimalist in philosophy, advocating nominalism
against the more popular view of realism. That is, he argued that universals
have no existence outside of the mind; universals are just names we use to
refer to groups of individuals and the properties of individuals. Realists
claim that not only are there individual objects and our concepts of those
objects, there are also universals. Ockham thought that this was one too
many pluralities. We don't need universals to explain anything. To
nominalists and realists there exist Socrates the individual and our concept
of Socrates.
To the realist there also exist such realities as the humanity of Socrates,
the animality of Socrates, etc. That is, every quality which may be
attributed to Socrates has a corresponding "reality", a "universal" or
eidos, as Plato called them. William might be said to have been skeptical of
this realm of plurality called the realm of universals. It is not needed for
logic, epistemology or metaphysics, so why assume this unnecessary
plurality? Plato and the realists could be right. Perhaps there is a realm
of eidos, of universal realities which are eternal, immutable models for
individual objects. But we don't need to posit such a realm in order to
explain individuals, our concepts or our knowledge. Plato's Eidos (Forms)
are excess and unnecessary metaphysical and epistemological baggage.
It might well be argued that Bishop George Berkeley applied Occam's razor to
eliminate material substance as an unnecessary plurality. According to
Berkeley, we need only minds and their ideas to explain everything. Berkeley
was a bit selective in his use of the razor, however. He needed to posit God
as the Mind who could hear the tree fall in the forest when nobody is
present. Subjective Idealists might use the razor to get rid of God. All can
be explained with just minds and their ideas. Of course this leads to
solipsism, the view that I and my ideas alone exist, or at least they are
all I know exist. Materialists, on the other hand, might be said to use the
razor to eliminate minds altogether. We don't need to posit a plurality of
minds as well as a plurality of brains.
Occam's razor is also called the principle of parsimony. These days it is
usually interpreted to mean something like "the simpler the explanation, the
better" or "don't multiply hypotheses unnecessarily." In any case, Occam's
razor is a principle which is frequently used outside of ontology, e.g., by
philosophers of science in an effort to establish criteria for choosing from
among theories with equal explanatory power. When giving explanatory reasons
for something, don't posit more than is necessary.
Von Däniken could be right: maybe extraterrestrials did teach ancient
people art and engineering, but we don't need to posit alien visitations in
order to explain the feats of ancient people. Why posit pluralities
unnecessarily? Or, as most would put it today, don't make any more
assumptions than you have to. We can posit the ether to explain action at a
distance, but we don't need ether to explain it, so why assume an ethereal
ether?
Oliver W. Holmes and Jerome Frank might be said to have applied Occam's
razor in arguing that there is no such thing as "the Law." There are only
judicial decisions; individual judgments and the sum of them make up the
law. To confuse matters, these eminent jurists called their view legal
realism, instead of legal nominalism. So much for simplifying matters.
Because Occam's razor is sometimes called the principle of simplicity some
creationists have argued that Occam's razor can be used to support
creationism over evolution. After all, having God create everything is much
simpler than evolution, which is a very complex mechanism. But Occam's razor
does not say that the more simple a hypothesis, the better. If it did,
Occam's would be dull razor for a dim populace indeed.
Some have even found a use for Occam's razor to justify budget cuts, arguing
that "what can be done with less is done in vain with more." This approach
seems to apply Occam's razor to the principle itself, eliminating the word
"assumptions." It also confuses matters by confusing "less" with "fewer."
Occam was concerned with fewer assumptions, not less money.
The original principle seems to have been invoked within the context of a
belief in the notion that perfection is simplicity itself. This seems to be
a metaphysical bias which we share with the medievals and the ancient
Greeks. For, like them, most of our disputes are not about this principle
but about what counts as necessary. To the materialist, dualists multiply
pluralities unnecessarily. To the dualist, positing a mind as well as a
body, is necessary. To atheists, positing God and a supernatural realm is to
posit pluralities unnecessarily. To the theist, positing God is necessary.
And so on.
To von Daniken, perhaps, the facts make it necessary to posit
extraterrestrials. To others, these aliens are unnecessary pluralities. In
the end, maybe Occam's razor says little more than that for atheists God is
unnecessary but for theists that is not true. If so, the principle is not
very useful. On the other hand, if Occam's razor means that when confronted
with two explanations, an implausible one and a probable one, a rational
person should select the probable one, then the principle seems unnecessary
because so obvious. But if the principle is truly a minimalist principle,
then it seems to imply the more reductionism the better. If so, then the
principle of parsimony might better have been called Occam's Chainsaw, for
its main use seems to be for clear-cutting ontology.
See related entries on ad hoc hypotheses, control study, cold reading,
communal reinforcement, confirmation bias, the placebo effect, the post hoc
fallacy, selective thinking, self-deception, subjective validation,
testimonials, James Van Praagh, and wishful thinking.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
further reading
a.. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy "William of Ockham"
Hyman, Arthur and James J. Walsh, Philosophy in the Middle Ages 2nd ed.
(Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co., 1973).
W.M. Thorburn, "The Myth of Occam's Razor," Mind 27:345-353 (1918).
Arthur Meineke
"Gene Douglas" <gene...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:FlqJb.46520$eD2....@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> He was excommunicated, then called the Pope a heretic. I think he was one
> of us.
> Occam's razor
> "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" or "plurality should not be
> posited without necessity." The words are those of the medieval English
> philosopher and Franciscan monk William of Ockham (ca. 1285-1349). Like
many
> Franciscans, William was a minimalist in this life, idealizing a life of
> poverty, and like St. Francis himself, battling with the Pope over the
> issue. William was excommunicated by Pope John XXII. He responded by
writing
> a treatise demonstrating that Pope John was a heretic.
>
> What is known as Occam's razor was a common principle in medieval
philosophy
> and was not originated by William, but because of his frequent usage of
the
> principle, his name has become indelibly attached to it. It is unlikely
that
> William would appreciate what some of us have done in his name. For
example,
> atheists often apply Occam's razor in arguing against the existence of God
> on the grounds that God is an unnecessary hypothesis. We can explain
> everything without assuming the extra metaphysical baggage of a Divine
> Being.
>
They have not been able to do it. People will continue to try. They will
never be able to do it.
Later...
Nothing new below.
gksh...@ucdavis.edu
[Gene:]
>> atheists often apply Occam's razor in arguing against the existence of God
>> on the grounds that God is an unnecessary hypothesis. We can explain
>> everything without assuming the extra metaphysical baggage of a Divine
>> Being.
>>
> Nope, you can not explain everything without metaphysics. People have tried.
> They have not been able to do it. People will continue to try. They will
> never be able to do it.
Yes, that is exactly the problem with metaphysics: it can explain everything,
and without it we must remain in the world of human uncertainty.
I think that the principle that atheists sometime apply here, and
it is related to Occam's Razor, has to do with the power of an
explanation. Good explanations reduce the size of the set of
observations to general principles plus a few paramters.
If we observe a large number of triangles and tabulate the sums of
their angles, we can come up with a very large set of facts to be
accounted for, in fact, a potentially infinite set of facts. But
if we introduce the generalization that the sum of the angles of
all triangles is 180 degrees, then this infinite set of observations
can be reduced to a very small general principle. Basically, the
goal of scientific explanation is the come up with the smallest
set of explanatory principles that will account for the set of
observations. This is related to Occam's Razor because "small" is
"simpler".
The problem with metaphysics or other "magical" explanations is
that they do not tend to reduce the set of observations to simple,
general principles: if you say that the sum of each triangles
happens to be 180 degrees because God wills it, but you believe
that God has the power to "will" the sum of the angles of a triangle
to be anything he chooses, then there is no way to reduce the set
of observations. All you could do is to say "for the finite number
of triangles I happen to have seen, the sum of the angles is 180,
but there is an infinite number of triangles I *haven't* seen for
which God could will the sum of the angles to be anything else, so
I cannot predict with certainty the sum of the angles of a triangle
I haven't measured".
That is, once you get into metaphysics, each phenomenon becomes
independent of all other phenomena and general principles become
impossible to derive; thus, parsimonious/simple explanations cannot
be achieved.
Greg Shenaut
Arthur Meineke
<gksh...@ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:bt71t5$6at$4...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
Thank you for your rigorous, detailed statement. Does it explain life, the
universe and everything? Nope.
Later...
Gene Douglas
"Arthur Meineke" <amei...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:QGYJb.865$4z....@fe2.texas.rr.com...
L&J Welch
God has always been used to explain what we were ignorant of. Before the
causality of disease, lightening, drought, intoxication, were understood (to
the extent we do - which is very much more than before) they were all
attributed to acts of god.
The more we know, the smaller god gets.
Gene Douglas
" L&J Welch" <ljw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:FJudnWHxIve...@comcast.com...
>
Arthur Meineke
We can explain everything without assuming the extra metaphysical baggage of
a Divine Being.
Are you saying that you were just making that up?
Later...
Arthur Meineke
for me. In the next paragraph I am quoting myself.
Augustine, bishop of Hippo and a key theologian of Christianity, used the
dialectic approach to decide that God created the universe ex nihilo (from
nothing). Augustine defined nihil as being nothing at all. I use a similar
approach to decide that he was almost correct. To me, nihil is the quantum
flux. Matter on a sub-atomic scale constantly appears from and disappears
into the quantum flux. I have a T-shirt bearing the words, 'My God is Bigger
Than Your God'. I don't know if my God is bigger than yours is or not, but I
do know that my God is bigger than that of St. Augustine. To Augustine, the
stars were merely lights carried around in the sky by angels. There is no
way to know how he would have reacted if he had known the vastness of
creation. What would he have decided if he had understood that this Earth is
a planet orbiting the sun that is a star among billions of other stars in a
galaxy among billions of other galaxies? Maybe his conclusions would be the
same as mine.
Later...
gksh...@ucdavis.edu
> I...know that my God is bigger than that of St. Augustine.
No, St. Augustine's is much bigger than yours.
Greg Shenaut
Gene Douglas
<gksh...@ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:btcia4$fqe$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
The last two statements are kind of arbitrary, so that doesn't leave much to
discuss.
gksh...@ucdavis.edu
Bingo.
Greg
Arthur Meineke
<gksh...@ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:btd602$ni5$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
I would like to discuss the reaction from you two. Your responses makes no
sense whatsoever. Please explain what you mean, otherwise it will look as if
you are bailing out when the going gets rough.
Later...
Gene Douglas
Hmm. Not wins.
>
gksh...@ucdavis.edu
> I would like to discuss the reaction from you two. Your responses
> makes no sense whatsoever. Please explain what you mean, otherwise it
> will look as if you are bailing out when the going gets rough.
You made the meaningless statement that "your god is bigger than
St Augustine's". There was no meaningful reply that could be made,
so I made an equally meaningless one contradicting yours to illustrate
the problem of making meaningless assertions. Gene noticed that
the statements didn't leave much to discuss because of their
arbitrariness, and I said "Bingo" to indicate my agreement with
his assessment of the exchange. (I wouldn't have chosen the word
"arbitrary" to characterize them, but close enough--among other
things, they *were* arbitrary.)
Is it clear now?
Greg
Gene Douglas
<gksh...@ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:btf5if$9cn$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
My god can whip your god.
>
> Greg
Arthur Meineke
Thank you. I now understand what you were getting at. Now let us refocus on
the reason I jumped into this thread in the first place. Gene made this
statement: 'We can explain everything without assuming the extra
metaphysical baggage of a Divine Being.' My position is that you can not.
Not now. Not ever. I now add the challenge...If you can explain Life, the
Universe and Everything then DO IT. I'm waiting.
Later...
gksh...@ucdavis.edu
> Thank you. I now understand what you were getting at. Now let us
> refocus on the reason I jumped into this thread in the first place.
> Gene made this statement: 'We can explain everything without assuming
> the extra metaphysical baggage of a Divine Being.' My position is that
> you can not. Not now. Not ever. I now add the challenge...If you can
> explain Life, the Universe and Everything then DO IT. I'm waiting.
Well, I agree that you can only explain everything if you assume
some kind of metaphysical baggage, although "a Divine Being" is
only one possible approach. You could have some other, non divine
being(s) with supernatural powers, or you could invent various
kinds of non empirical systems not involving beings at all. Since
I don't have any interest in going down any of those candy-coated,
but ultimately poisonous roads (those kinds of "explanations" don't
really explain anything), I simply take the position that we can
never explain everything in a satisfactory way.
Another way to look at it is that "everything" is the asymptote of
our explanatory prowess: we can explain more and more things, with
our explanations becoming more and more precise, more and more
unified, but "everything" will always elude us.
Greg Shenaut
Gene Douglas
<gksh...@ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:bth9it$rn1$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
> Arthur Meineke <amei...@houston.rr.com> wrote (Wed, 07 Jan 2004 15:33:21
GMT):
> > Thank you. I now understand what you were getting at. Now let us
> > refocus on the reason I jumped into this thread in the first place.
> > Gene made this statement: 'We can explain everything without assuming
> > the extra metaphysical baggage of a Divine Being.' My position is that
> > you can not. Not now. Not ever. I now add the challenge...If you can
> > explain Life, the Universe and Everything then DO IT. I'm waiting.
Somebody else made that statement. I think that we can not explain
everything, period. And as an article of faith, that which could be
explained could *probably* be explained without magic. However, if on must
bring in magic to explain things, one muse simply make it up.
Assuming that it would be possible to explain everything, with the
instruments and powers of observation we could develop, I doubt the human
race will live long enough to get that far.
Gene Douglas
Somebody else said that.
Arthur Meineke
making the statement that I copied and pasted from one of your previous
posts, I ask that the 'real' perpetrator stand up.
Later...
Gene Douglas
gksh...@ucdavis.edu
> I'm not willing to do the search. But if anybody is, I'm sure it's there.
Gene, I think you did say it, but you are probably guilty only of
hyperbole rather than of actually believing that you can prove
"everything" without appeal to the supernatural.
Greg
Gene Douglas
<gksh...@ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:btlc20$j2q$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
I don't even believe it. Why would I say it?
>
Gene Douglas
encyclopedia.
Not to be an apologist for the writer of the article, perhaps he meant, "we
can explain whatever we need to..." indicating that if it can be explained,
it can be explained without the extra metaphysical baggage, or at least that
is the atheist's point of view.
"Arthur Meineke" <amei...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:mVfKb.11788$4z.1...@fe2.texas.rr.com...
Arthur Meineke
> O.K., the quote was in the article I quoted, cut and pasted I think from
an
> encyclopedia.
>
> Not to be an apologist for the writer of the article, perhaps he meant,
"we
> can explain whatever we need to..." indicating that if it can be
explained,
> it can be explained without the extra metaphysical baggage, or at least
that
> is the atheist's point of view.
>
I'll make what will probably be my final post to this thread with a
statement about faith. As I do this, first I must underline that I am on
both sides. What I mean is that I support the scientific method and I also
support spiritual perspectives. I think that 'Science' and 'Religion' must
find a middle ground. That being said, I now insert an article (without
permission) from the January 2004 edition of Discover magazine:
"Before the first detailed full-sky map of the early universe was unveiled
in February, astrophysicists could offer only approximate answers to some
fundamental questions: How old is the universe? What exactly does it
contain? What is its shape?
The map was compiled from data collected by the Wilkinson Microwave
Anisotropy Probe, or WMAP, a NASA orbiting laboratory that was launched June
30, 2001. WMAP has provided an unprecedented overview of the universe as it
was 380,000 years after the Big Bang, just after an opaque soup of atom
fragments combined for the first time into actual atoms. That process sent
out radiation. The probe measured the faint glow of this radiation, known as
the cosmic microwave background, across the entire sky.
With this data, the WMAP research team calculated that the universe is 13.7
billion years old (plus or minus 1 percent) and determined that the first
stars appeared 200 million years after the Big Bang, far earlier than most
previous estimates. They also reconstructed the exact proportions of the
contents of the cosmos: 4 percent normal matter, 23 percent dark matter, and
73 percent dark energy. Those figures indicate that the universe is flat and
will most likely continue to expand forever.
"The WMAP results are a turning point," says astrophysicist Charles Bennett
of Goddard Space Flight Center, the probe's lead scientist. "Now we need to
ask a whole new set of questions, like what happened in the very first
moments of inflation and what is dark matter."
------
About the matter of faith. These scientists claim that 23 percent of the
cosmos is composed of matter that we can't see. 73 percent of the cosmos is
composed of energy we can't feel. It is apparent that they have faith in
their numbers. Pythagoras would have been proud.
Don't misunderstand. I am not saying they are wrong. I suspect that these
unseen factors could be parallel universes. That would have totally blown
Augustine's mind.
Later...
Gene Douglas
certainty, and I thirsted for a meaningful vision of human life -- so I
became a scientist. This is like becoming an archbishop so you can
meet girls."
-- Matt Cartmill
Nothing new below.
"Arthur Meineke" <amei...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:xxULb.30225$WS1....@fe1.texas.rr.com...