82 réponses à ce sujet

[mousestalker]

10. Norman Borlaug
9. Gen. William Booth
8. Frederick Hayek
7. William Porcher Dubose
6. Abraham Lincoln
5. Thomas Cranmer
4. William of Ockham
3. Adam Smith
2. Rene Descartes
1. St Francis of Assisi

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

@mousestalker, except 1,2,3 and 6 I've hardly heard any of your list persons names!
So I hope my ignorance doesn't bother anyone.

[Swordfishtrombone]

Garbage Master wrote...

@mousestalker, except 1,2,3 and 6 I've hardly heard any of your list persons names!
So I hope my ignorance doesn't bother anyone.

Well, William of Occam is famous for "Occam's Razor", the principle of parsimony that tells you that when you've got two or more competing hypothesis to explain something, you should select the one that requires the fewest new assumptions, all other thigs being equal.

So, for example, say you wake up in the morning, and see snow on the ground, and wonder how it got there. Bob tells you that it was snow-fairies that dumped the snow outside, and Judy tells you that the snow is on the ground because it snowed last night.

Now which hypothesis is more likely? The latter of course. And why? Because it requires no new assumptions (we know that it snows sometimes, that it can snow at night, and that this understood weather event leaves the ground covered in snow), wheras Bob's idea required positing the existence of snow-fairies, with all the baggage that comes with positing the existence of a whole new species of creatures, capable of doing something extraordinary (like covering the ground it snow), and inventing motivations for why they would do so, and HOW they achieved this.

So Bob's assumption is littered with new assumptions that would have to be made just to accept it's validity, wheras Judy's explanation does not require you to assume anything you don't have good evidence for.

Occam's razor would thus lead you to tentatively accept Judy's explanation, unless untill Bob can come up with some pretty extraordinary evidence to back up his version of events.

Now that example was quite clear cut, and you probably wouldn't need a well thought out principle like Occam's Razor to determine that Bob was... not all there, but in cases where it's not so obvious, resorting to a clear principle like Occam's Razor can be helpful in determining what is most likely.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

@Swordfishtrombone
Thanks. I think it must has been in philosophy-science around 200 years at least. It doesn't seem something new. well it must be in our education without mentioning the principle. I'm automatically using it!
So it means, it is unknown to us to find out what is beyond the most far galaxies in the border(?) of the world. So assuming emptiness beyond it isn't much strong just like assuming another 3 worlds beyond or a integrated world as we can't observe that far.

[mousestalker]

Swordfishtrombone explained who William of Ockham was.

Thomas Cranmer was Archbishop of Canterbury under Henry the Eighth. I admire him for how he died rather than how he lived. William Porcher Dubose was the greatest American theologian. He also lived a remarkable life. Frederick Hayek was arguably the second or third greatest economist ever. Gen William Booth founded the Salvation Army. Norman Borlaug was a biologist, geneticist and agronomist who started the Green Revolution. Literally billions of people are alive and well fed today because of his work.

[Lord Phoebus]

Ockham's Razor tends to be a very poor thing to use in science, because it has often ended up rejecting hypotheses that prove to be true later, because the simple theory made the wrong assumptions, while the complex theory had the right assumptions. The inherent flaw in the principle is that there is no logical reason to assume that the solution with the fewest new assumptions is correct. There may be empirical data to suggest that this is most likely the case, but the better course of action is to assume that both are plausible until one can be proven over the other.

Modifié par Lord Phoebus, 21 juin 2011 - 03:20 .

[Swordfishtrombone]

Garbage Master wrote...
So it means, it is unknown to us to find out what is beyond the most far galaxies in the border(?) of the world. So assuming emptiness beyond it isn't much strong just like assuming another 3 worlds beyond or a integrated world as we can't observe that far.

I'm not sure I understood that. Our milkyway is one galaxy, and we know of a huge number of galaxies beyond it - as a far as we can see we see galaxies. I believe the estimations go up to somewhere around 500 billion galaxies in the universe.

If you are asking about what we know of "beyond" the universe, that would be very little - there are hypothesis ranging from "there is nothing but the universe, and talking about beyond it is like talking about north of the north pole - nonsensical" to "there are probably an infinite number of universes". As various hypothesis don't make many testable claims, and those claims that might in principle be testable aren't testable with any level of technology we might come up with in the foreseeable future, I myself use Occam's razor in selecting what I see as the most likely alternative - the one that requires the fewest new assumptions.

As far as I know, that would be one of the multiverse-hypothesis, but to go on to why would have me writing much longer than I suspect anyone would have the patience to read, or I to write, really.

[Swordfishtrombone]

Lord Phoebus wrote...

Ockham's Razor tends to be a very poor thing to use in science, because it has often ended up rejecting hypotheses that prove to be true later, because the simple theory made the wrong assumptions, while the complex theory had the right assumptions. The inherent flaw in the principle is that there is no logical reason to assume that the solution with the fewest new assumptions is correct. There may be empirical data to suggest that this is most likely the case, but the better course of action is to assume that both are plausible until one can be proven over the other.

That is why you don't use Occam's Razor to make any sort of FINAL decisions, but rather tentative, "for now" decisions when you have multiple hypothesis and very little evidence to make one better than the other. In that case is when you use Occam's Razor, and you don't discard the more complex hypothesis, but rather remain ready to change your mind should the more complex hypotheis receive evidence that makes it more probable than the simpler one.

Occam's Razor, when properly applied, is not some sort of absolute decision making tool, but rather a guide in a situation where you don't have enough evidence to base a decision on that evidence.

[Lord Phoebus]

Swordfishtrombone wrote...
That is why you don't use Occam's Razor to make any sort of FINAL decisions, but rather tentative, "for now" decisions when you have multiple hypothesis and very little evidence to make one better than the other. In that case is when you use Occam's Razor, and you don't discard the more complex hypothesis, but rather remain ready to change your mind should the more complex hypotheis receive evidence that makes it more probable than the simpler one.

Occam's Razor, when properly applied, is not some sort of absolute decision making tool, but rather a guide in a situation where you don't have enough evidence to base a decision on that evidence.

The problem is that historically it hasn't been used with such prudence and often, instead of stopping to perform an experiment to test the competing theories or performing a calculation with both models, people charge ahead with the simple theory.  I'm not saying it isn't useful, but you have to bear in mind that it has only slightly more validity than when in doubt pick c) in a mutliple choice exam. 

[Swordfishtrombone]

^Like any tool, it can be missused. It also depends a lot on the details of the competing hypothesis as to what degree of confidence you can place on a choise made by using Occam's Razor - the rather extreme example I gave to illustrate the principle earlier would be a situation where Occam's Razor is very, very, very unlikely to lead you into the wrong choise.

I do agree though that it can be missused, by placing too much confidence on the choise made on the principle - that's a human failing though. When we make a choise, all our psychological biases start to work to ensure that you look for evidence to support your choise, rather than to contradict it. Changing your mind is hard work.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Appreciation for all these precious comments. I won't update this topic since tomorrow. So is there anyone else who wants to share his/her Favorite Persons in the history?

[Comrade Bork]

No particular order:

Theodore Roosevelt
John F. Kennedy
Andrew Jackson
George Patton
Erwin Rommel
Albert Speer
Richard Nixon
Robert Heinlein (I know you said no novel writers, but Starship Troopers is a very key political piece of literature)
Thomas Jefferson
Samuel Colt

Now, I may not agree with many of the positions taken by these people, but they are interesting to study nonetheless.

[Slurms McKenzie]

Hmmmmm, here are mine (not in order of preference, just random):

1. Albert Einstein
2. Mahatma Gandhi
3. St. Francis of Assisi
4. Father Christmas
5. The Dalai Lama
6. Noel Coward
7. Jean-Paul Sartre
8. George Lucas
9. Steven tyler
10. Of course, it is has to be Rik Mayall:



Good Luck and Stay Safe

[bmwcrazy]

Comrade Bork wrote...

No particular order:

Theodore Roosevelt
John F. Kennedy
Andrew Jackson
George Patton
Erwin Rommel
Albert Speer
Richard Nixon
Robert Heinlein (I know you said no novel writers, but Starship Troopers is a very key political piece of literature)
Thomas Jefferson
Samuel Colt

bmwcrazy approves your list.

[MrFob]

Wow, this is a very interesting topic.
It would probably take me a while to come up with my list but Da Vinci would probably be on 1. On the one hand he was one of the greatest minds in history and talented in so many areas, on the other hand, he seems to have been an old slacker which makes him very likable in my book.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Well, this is the last time I'm updating this. Feel free to share your list.

[Comrade Bork]

Oh, to my list I definitely have to add Napoleon Bonaparte. He is definitely in my top ten, I can throw someone out.

[Fishy]

My friend and family member.Has for 'celebrities' .I don't care.

Modifié par Suprez30, 22 juin 2011 - 05:38 .

[Rokky94]

EDIT: People didn't get the joke.

Modifié par Rokky94, 25 juin 2011 - 04:33 .

[N7 Elite]

1. Che Guevara
2. Marcus Aurelius
3. Oda Nobunaga
4. Genghis Khan
5. John F. Kennedy
6. Hannibal Barca
7. Salah ad-Din is a laqab
8. Minamoto Yo****sune
9. Otto von Bismarck
10. Peter the Great

[Rorschachinstein]

in no order

1. George Washington
2. Constantine the Great
3. Richard the Lion Heart.
4. Erwin Rommel
5.Diocletian
6.Cincinncanatus
7.George Lucas
8.Africanus Scipio
9.Jesus Christ
10.Charles Martel

[Agamo45]

Winston Churchill
Abraham Lincoln
Benjamin Franklin
Thomas Jefferson
George Patton
Douglas MacArthur
Hannibal
Francisco Franco (he was a bastard, but he did what he had to do to crush communism in Spain)
Ronald Reagan
Carl von Clausewitz

[Dannybare]

Alexei Brusilov- The only good Russian Commander of WW1
Confucius
Jesus
Rommel
Bernard Montgomery
Lyndon B Johnson- Apart from escalating the Vietnam War, he was a good president. Though even for the Vietnam war you can't put all the blame on him, Eisenhower and Kennedy should have to shoulder some blame.
Franklin D.Roosevelt
Clement Attlee- Run the British Home Front during WW2 and introduced the NHS.

Can't think of anymore.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Awesome threads must be resurrected.

[Orian Tabris]

Kaiser Arian wrote...

Awesome threads must be resurrected.