Lack of proof is not proof
Absence of evidence is not evidence
This person doesn't understand logic, faith or Occam's razor.

>> ^burdturgler:
Lack of proof is not proof
Absence of evidence is not evidence
This person doesn't understand logic, faith or Occam's razor.


I've heard the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" argument before. It comes up frequently but in a variety of linguistic forms. The most common form I've found is "Just because you cant see something, doesn't mean it isn't there!"

To that I reply; it doesn't mean it IS there either.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by JiggaJonson.

Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
William Ockham (c. 1285–1349): The term razor refers to the act of shaving away unnecessary assumptions to get to the simplest explanation.

If we deconstruct occam's razor, it goes like this:
(assumption 1)There exists at least one simplest explanation of a phenomenon which makes the fewest assumptions.
(assumption 2)There does not exist a better explanation than the simplest explanation for a given phenomenon.
(argument)If the simplest explanation covers all known facts about the phenomenon it explains, then a better explanation does not exist.

This is perfect logic. You may not agree with the assumption that there exists at least one simplest explanation which makes the fewest assumptions, or you may even not agree that the best explanation is the simplest, but in both those cases you are toying with metaphysics. In the world of information, simplest is always the best. It doesn't mean you always get the best, but ideally the best you can attain is also the simplest. If you find that your previous best explanation requires the addition of a new assumption, then that means it didn't cover all known facts and thus wasn't the best explanation in the first place. Indeed, science is the search for the very best explanation, that explains even as yet unknown facts (facts which you try to find through experimentation, which is why you will sometimes get false positives that validates one of your new and fancier explanation). But in the meantime, we do what we can with the best explanation.

>> ^Sagemind:
Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
William Ockham (c. 1285–1349): The term razor refers to the act of shaving away unnecessary assumptions to get to the simplest explanation.

>> ^Bidouleroux:
If we deconstruct occam's razor, it goes like this:
(assumption 1)There exists at least one simplest explanation of a phenomenon which makes the fewest assumptions.
(assumption 2)There does not exist a better explanation than the simplest explanation for a given phenomenon.
(argument)If the simplest explanation covers all known facts about the phenomenon it explains, then a better explanation does not exist.
This is perfect logic. You may not agree with the assumption that there exists at least one simplest explanation which makes the fewest assumptions, or you may even not agree that the best explanation is the simplest, but in both those cases you are toying with metaphysics. In the world of information, simplest is always the best. It doesn't mean you always get the best, but ideally the best you can attain is also the simplest. If you find that your previous best explanation requires the addition of a new assumption, then that means it didn't cover all known facts and thus wasn't the best explanation in the first place. Indeed, science is the search for the very best explanation, that explains even as yet unknown facts (facts which you try to find through experimentation, which is why you will sometimes get false positives that validates one of your new and fancier explanation). But in the meantime, we do what we can with the best explanation.
>> ^Sagemind:
Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
William Ockham (c. 1285–1349): The term razor refers to the act of shaving away unnecessary assumptions to get to the simplest explanation.




This is very true. You can think of information almost like a river of water slicing through ground. It always finds the path of least resistance and keeps moving with gravity (and other forces, basically almost anything left can be boiled down to friction).

Information with humans works the same. It seemingly begins complex, but over time it's realized that it is far simpler than previously thought by using more complex information. This has been true for math, sciences, even religion.

Also, I think he did mention some evidence in the video as he did talk about the likelihood of a given scenario taking place with current understanding. In it he took "the least path of resistance" and concluded that the sound was caused by the box falling due to lack of friction on a tilted shelf. Occam's Razor.