This first one is from the aptly named Winston Wu (I’m not the first to make that connection I’d wager) , who frames himself as the “skeptic debunker” There is much fallacious material on his website for me to choose from. I thought I’d start with this egregious example on his “debunking” of Occam’s Razor. He makes a few points about the razor, but the particular fallacy I want to concentrate on is in point 1. Bare in mind there is more than likely to be more than one spin on this (bets firmly hedged):
Can I suggest, before you have a crack – read my “skeptic” definition of Occam's Razor. You can then browse about the Fallacy List to give you an idea.Argument # 3: The Occam’s Razor rule
Stated as: “When there are two competing explanations for an event, the simpler one is more likely.”
This argument is a principle that skeptics often misuse to try to force alternate explanations to paranormal ones, even if those explanations involve false accusations or do not fit the facts. Originally, it began as a principle in physics having to do with parsimony, but somehow got twisted into a mantra for invalidating paranormal claims...
1) First of all, Occam’s Razor, termed by 14th Century logician and friar William of Occam, refers to a concept that states that "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." It was not intended to be used to evaluate claims of the paranormal as skeptics today use it for. As Phil Gibbs points out in “Physics FAQ”: (http://www.weburbia.com/physics/)
“To begin with we used Occam's razor to separate theories which would predict the same result for all experiments. Now we are trying to choose between theories which make different predictions. This is not what Occam intended…
The principle of simplicity works as a heuristic rule-of-thumb but some people quote it as if it is an axiom of physics. It is not. It can work well in philosophy or particle physics, but less often so in cosmology or psychology, where things usually turn out to be more complicated than you ever expected...
The law of parsimony is no substitute for insight, logic and the scientific method. It should never be relied upon to make or defend a conclusion. As arbiters of correctness only logical consistency and empirical evidence are absolute.”
Even Isaac Newton didn’t use Occam’s Razor like the skeptics of today do. His version of it was “We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.” (see same Physics FAQ)
If you’re too lazy to click a link, here’s Carl Sagan’s definition from the Demon Haunted World (original emphasis):
Occam's Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.If you’re already a top gun skeptic, then reading that probably wasted your time, so sorry…
I’ll put up my answer in a week or so.
Ps. Don’t look any comments (assuming I get any…) until you’ve thought about it a bit.
Pps. A fallacy he isn't making is Appeal to Authority (even if he is citing Isaac Newton).
Posts
8 comments:
There appears to be a genetic fallacy in the appeal to "what Occam intended...," and a bifurcation in the opposition of parsimony and insight, logic, and the scientific method.
He definitely makes the genetic fallacy when he argues that if Occam didn't intend his maxim to be used in the way we apply it today, the way we apply it today is therefore incorrect.
It’s important to note there is no problem in citing Occam, if it is simply to give Occam’s razor its due historical reference. The genetic fallacy is made when one says, as this is how it was originally intended, it should only be used in this original fashion now (and this original use is bad/good). This is similar to appealing to Cultural Origins.
As you say, the bifurcation (or False Dichotomy) is the way he frames his point, in that Occam’s razor either is or isn’t applicable. This bit he quotes is an example:
The law of parsimony is no substitute for insight, logic and the scientific method. It should never be relied upon to make or defend a conclusion. As arbiters of correctness only logical consistency and empirical evidence are absolute.
The false dichotomy is that Occam’s razor isn’t “substituted” for insight, logic and the scientific method. If anything, it’s a component of insight, logic and the scientific method.
This is a hint to the major fallacy I think he makes, in the way he claims skeptics use Occam’s razor vs the way skeptics actually use Occam’s razor… I.e., compare Carl Sagan's definition, or mine, to how he claims we use it - they're not the same...
His argument forwards parsimony as a generative principle in the development of hypotheses rather than a rule governing a choice given two options which explain equally well. This misrepresentation of the argument in question and as such a straw man fallacy.
He seems to be suggesting that Occam's Razor means that you take several explanations and then chose the simplest of them. But the explanations need to meet a threshold level of explanatory power (in the sense of explaining all relevant data) before Occam's Razor kicks in. If Occam's Razor were applied in the way that Winston suggests then the simplest explanation could be that 'a fairy did it' or something like that.
I don't know what the name of that fallacy is. False positioning?
Ah, surely the simplest argument is that all things come from water. Surely philospohy has never progressed fatther than Thales.
I think ezra and teajay have it. His argument is a "straw man/false position". He claims that skeptics use Occam's razor as "the simplest explanation is most likely correct", as the default answer. In actuality this is only invoked if there are two explanations for something, both doing the same explanatory job, but one has superfluous steps to do it - then why choose the convoluted one?
The "prize" goes to Ezra, with an honourable mention to teajay and then Arthur F. As they said, and I said in my hint, Wu has created a Straw Man argument (False Positioning) in order to easily "knock it down".
The clearest example is:
The law of parsimony is no substitute for insight, logic and the scientific method. It should never be relied upon to make or defend a conclusion. As arbiters of correctness only logical consistency and empirical evidence are absolute
Name a scientist or skeptic who goes for Occam's razor before insight, logic and the scientific method? Moreover, it is valid to use Occam's razor to defend a conclusion once two competing theories, based on insight, logic and the scientific method are "tied".
He is also guilty of a False Attribution by saying:
The principle of simplicity works as a heuristic rule-of-thumb but some people quote it as if it is an axiom of physics.
Who are these "some people". As far as I'm able to tell, skeptics always say it's a rule of thumb, but when the choice is between two competing theories that explain the data, go for the least convoluted theory until such time there is more evidence in favour of the more convoluted one.
That's four obvious fallacies in a few paragraphs. Good job Wu!
Wu is, of course, trying to dismiss Occam's razor as he is a paranormalist (yes, I am Impugning his Motives). The irony here is that Occam's razor is rarely needed to defeat paranormal claims as whenever they come up against proper controlled scietific testing, they fail. After the application of insight, logic and the scientific method, the evidence regarding paranormal claims firmly sits in the "conventional science" camp.
I'll give an example of this in an upcoming post, about a time I thought I was being pulled down into hell by a demon, possibly Lucifer himself!
I see the prizes have already been awarded, but I thought I’d add something anyway. As has been pointed out, it’s a straw man – skeptics don’t use OR the way he says we do.
OR isn’t used to “evaluate claims of the paranormal”. OR merely states that if there is a prosaic explanation for an observation, then the observation is not evidence of the paranormal. It’s that simple.
Post a Comment