/sci/ - Science & Math

Not /sci/, fuck off with high school philosophy.

>>6071914
Occam´s Razor is actually a huge part of science.

>>6071922

Correlation =/= Causation

>>6071924
AGW denier detected

>>6071925

there is a correlation between the softness of asphalt and the occurence of diarrhea in babies.
Do you think this is a causal relationship?

Occam's Razor is a good rule of thumb, but it's hardly a law. Assume simple explanations, test them, then come up with more complex ones if your first hypothesis didn't hold.

But trying to "prove" anything with Occam's Razor is nonsensical.

>>6071928
When there's a correlation, there has to be a causation. Denying this simple law would mean denying AGW. Remember the cute polar bears and the dramatic music Al Gore played when showing you all the correlation graphics. Do you really want to deny that humans are responsible for climate change?

>>6071910
Car type x colour red vs Car type y colour blue

Blue car wins race

Car type y colour blue is faster

Occams razor :

Blue is faster

>>6071933
>>6071940

Philosophy grad here.

Occam's razor doesn't say that the simplest explanation is always the best, it warns against multiplying entities beyond necessity; which is not the same thing.

Essentially, parsimony is a theoretical virtue, so prefer the theory which explains the available phenomena while making the fewest assumptions.

>>6071945
>Philosophy grad here.

>>6071945
some one seems like they no what theyre talking about, out of curiosity would you recommend going to uni for a philosophy degree?

>>6071948

From a personal development perspective, absolutely, nothing better.

From a career development perspective, absolutely not. A STEM subject opens all the same doors to you and then some.

Unless you want to enter academia, obviously.

>>6071945
>>6071951
Philosophy question: If I cannot know nuthin, how can I know that I cannot know nuthin?

>>6071924
>>6071925
>>6071928
>>6071934

more please. In a new thread if needed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_maximum_entropy

>>6071953

Just gonna resolve those double negatives before I answer:

'If I must know something, how can I know that I must know something?'

Or in other words: the problem of knowledge. If the condition for knowing something is that I know that I know something, how can I know anything?

Answer: you don't have to know that you know something to know it. Reject that condition on knowledge and the problem disappears.

I should say that I haven't done epistemology since second year, but that sounds about right.

Why don't you at least read the first paragraph of the wikipedia article before posting?
>It states that a̲m̲o̲n̲g̲ ̲c̲o̲m̲p̲e̲t̲i̲n̲g̲ ̲h̲y̲p̲o̲t̲h̲e̲s̲e̲s̲, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

>>6071934
>When there's a correlation, there has to be a causation.

how do I into science?

>>6071934
>When there's a correlation, there has to be a causation
Maybe I'm wrong but the reasoning of average people is :
A correlates with B
so A=>B (or B=>A)

without taking account a chain of exterior events that explain the link (like A=>C, C=>B, so from a !!!practical!!! point of view, C is a more logical 'cause' than A)

Not sure if I'm clear

>>6071992

I mean A causes C and C causes B is still a fairly strong causal relation.

C causes both A and B; or C causes A and D causes B (and both C and D happen to obtain) might be better.

>>6071934

>there has to be causation


Even when nobody can find it?


That's faith, my lad.

>>6071910
>Occam's Razor

It's more of a heuristic than an accepted truth, really.

>>6072169

Not him, but isn't the causation in that case found?
I mean, we consume more, more production, more CO2, less trees etc

>>6072394
When I breathe, I produce CO2 too. Does that mean I am responsible for climate change?

>>6071962

You know that was a troll, right?

>>6072399
Trolling does not belong outside of /b/.

>>6072396
YEs

>>6073481
I don't want to be responsible for climate change.