Occam's Razor and Your Ontology!

[Fifty]

So the (successful beyond my wildest imagination) ontology thread made me wonder:

Occam's Razor is often characterized as a sort of ontological parsimony: don't add more entities to your ontology than you have to for a complete account of whatever you want an account of. Occam's Razor is also one of the most-loved and most-cited philosophical principles among people who aren't really into philosophy, but who love science!

I also noticed that nearly 80% of the voters in that thread, including pretty much all of the sciencey people that I'm aware of, voted that ordinary material objects (tables, chairs, laptops, etc.) exist.

But doesn't that violate the razor!? I mean, why suppose that there is this thing, a chair, rather than just a bunch of particles arranged chair-wise?

NOTE:

The quickest solution to this is usually for the person to go: BUT A CHAIR JUST IS A BUNCH OF PARTICLES ARRANGED CHAIR-WISE, WE JUST CALL THAT THING A CHAIR BECAUSE ITS LINGUISTICALLY EASIER.

Before you say that, do realize that in the ontology thread, I asked whether chairs EXIST not whether a word exists for a bunch of particles arranged chair-wise.

So, whats the deal? Is Occam's Razor wrong? Is your ontology wrong? Or do you magically cause actual things to come into existence by acts of dubbing? Or something else?

 

[puglover]

I think this is a time to call common sense over philosophy.

 

[Fifty]

I think this is a time to call common sense over philosophy.

So are you denying ontological parsimony (Occam's Razor), or are you denying that ordinary material objects exist, or somethin' else?

 

[Truronian]

BUT A CHAIR JUST IS A BUNCH OF PARTICLES ARRANGED CHAIR-WISE, WE JUST CALL THAT THING A CHAIR BECAUSE ITS LINGUISTICALLY EASIER, so surely one only requires particles to exist in order for chairs to exist.

 

[Fifty]

BUT A CHAIR JUST IS A BUNCH OF PARTICLES ARRANGED CHAIR-WISE, WE JUST CALL THAT THING A CHAIR BECAUSE ITS LINGUISTICALLY EASIER, so surely one only requires particles to exist in order for chairs to exist.

But look, you're saying that the particles exist, and this further thing exists: a chair. It is composed of the same stuff as the particles, but they are distinct objects.

 

[shortguy]

Parsimony is overrated, though I personally come across foolish appeals to parsimony more in ethics than ontology.

 

[Love]

Nothing is overrated. Some things just suck.

 

[puglover]

So are you denying ontological parsimony (Occam's Razor), or are you denying that ordinary material objects exist, or somethin' else?

Occam's Razor.

Sometimes you just have to say, "Screw it. I don't know whether or not I (or a chair) 'really exist' but I must act like they do."

 

[WillJ]

I'm not sure where the contradiction is. Particles exist, and chairs exist (not just in a linguistically convenient sense), and this doesn't violate Occam's Razor, as holding particles and chairs as distinct explains more than just looking at particles, since many things are caused by chairs as a whole, not the particles that make up them.

 

[Perfection]

I love violating Occam's Razor, it makes me feel powerful and manly.

IMHO, chairs, particles, holes, words, and orbits, all exist because we all see them in physical reality. Yeah they are collections of stuff, collections of non stuff, non stuff, and stuffy non antistuff, but whatevs.

People who get deep into characterising the exact nature of existence are either:

1. Crazy philosopher dudes. Which is okay because they seem to understand the trickiness and aren't going to be whine about my exact usage.

2. Stupid atheists who think if they budge on love, holes, and words existing, then suddenly God can exist and you can't berate religionists anymore.

 

[MobBoss]

I think this is a time to call common sense over philosophy.

As the Prophet of Common Sense I endorse this message.

 

[puglover]

IMHO, chairs, particles, holes, words, and orbits, all exist because we all see them in physical reality. Yeah they are collections of stuff, collections of non stuff, non stuff, and stuffy non antistuff, but whatevs.

Whatevs: The Anti-Philosopher

 

[nivi]

Philosophical nonsense.

 

[Perfection]

I'm not anti-philosophy! Philosophy isn't so much about proving common notions wrong, but exploring how they arrive to their conclusions. I certainly think there is much validity in exploring the different ways we approach existance and what is the nature of the relationship between concepts and physical reality.

What I don't care for is people who need to define existance outside of common usage to support their ideology. These people are generally non-philosophers.

Philosophy is good! Idiots who think they know philosophy and try to impose thier cruddy views on everyone else are bad.

 

[puglover]

I'm not anti-philosophy! Philosophy isn't so much about proving common notions wrong, but exploring how they arrive to their conclusions. I certainly think there is much validity in exploring the different ways we approach existance and what is the nature of the relationship between concepts and physical reality.

What I don't care for is people who need to define existance outside of common usage to support their ideology. These people are generally non-philosophers.

Philosophy is good! Idiots who think they know philosophy and try to impose thier cruddy views on everyone else are bad.

I understand. I was just making the observation that lame philosophy's worst enemy is giving a shrug and saying "Whatever."

 

[MobBoss]

Philosophy: That which does not kill you, makes you stronger.

Common Sense: That which does not kill you, can still leave your ass crippled.

 

[Perfection]

I should note that this isn't Fifty's philosophy I'm shrugging off, but the viewpoint he is trying to discourage.

Fifty rules.

 

[Perfection]

Philosophy: That which does not kill you, makes you stronger.

Common Sense: That which does not kill you, can still leave your ass crippled.

PHILOSOPHY DUN' SAY THAT MOBBY MCBOSSFACE!

 

[Rhymes]

Occam's razor:

The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".

This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood

hum.... since I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, care to alaborate as to where exactly defining a chair rather then an arrangment of particles contradicts occam's razor?

 

[bardolph]

So the (successful beyond my wildest imagination) ontology thread made me wonder:

Occam's Razor is often characterized as a sort of ontological parsimony: don't add more entities to your ontology than you have to for a complete account of whatever you want an account of. Occam's Razor is also one of the most-loved and most-cited philosophical principles among people who aren't really into philosophy, but who love science!

I also noticed that nearly 80% of the voters in that thread, including pretty much all of the sciencey people that I'm aware of, voted that ordinary material objects (tables, chairs, laptops, etc.) exist.

But doesn't that violate the razor!? I mean, why suppose that there is this thing, a chair, rather than just a bunch of particles arranged chair-wise?

NOTE:

The quickest solution to this is usually for the person to go: BUT A CHAIR JUST IS A BUNCH OF PARTICLES ARRANGED CHAIR-WISE, WE JUST CALL THAT THING A CHAIR BECAUSE ITS LINGUISTICALLY EASIER.

Before you say that, do realize that in the ontology thread, I asked whether chairs EXIST not whether a word exists for a bunch of particles arranged chair-wise.

So, whats the deal? Is Occam's Razor wrong? Is your ontology wrong? Or do you magically cause actual things to come into existence by acts of dubbing? Or something else?

Link, please.