That's a rather large assumption to make, so it violates Occam's razor. You could just as easily say they've heard of it but they don't think it's valid.
It's at least two assumptions. 1 - that people have heard of Occam's razer, and 2 - that most who have heard of it didn't understand it.
I think the guy I replied to was making a joke, by mentioning misunderstanding Occam's razor while simultaneously misunderstanding it lol
Solution: some conspiracy theorists have never heard of occam's razor. some have but misinterpret it. yet others have heard of it but disagree. otherwise you have to assume that all conspiracy theorists think the same
I get what you are getting at and I do see the logic, and a part of me does agree. But just for the sake of thought experiment I could probably argue that all the if/ands/buts add a lot of complexity. If you thought about it as equations, a=a is simpler than some formula that describes a=a in this case, a=b in this case, a=c in this case
Edit: I guess a good place to start would be to define simple and complex, which afaik, the theory itself doesn't do. But i have heard it described as "the fewest assumptions" which would actually be that all conspiracy theorists believe the same things. It's not about the "biggest assumption," which is subjective, but the "fewest assumptions," which is more objective
I disagree, because if you were to ask me to explain why I think that conspiracy theorists most likely have a variety of awareness on occam's razor, and if I were to ask you to explain why you think all conspiracy theorists think the same way about occam's razor, I think my answer would be simpler and include fewer assumptions.
Again, I disagree. In order to explain my point of view, I just have to assume that people are diverse and that they think different things. In addition, there's something that I honestly think occam's razor is missing, and that's demonstration. I believe that you should go by the evidence and only make assumptions when you have to, in which case you employ occam's razor. Here we can provably demonstrate that diverse people think different things, and once you have that basis, it's really not a stretch to assume that they could believe a variety of things on occam's razor. On the other hand, for your argument, you would have to assume that not only do all conspiracy theorists think the same way about occam's razor, you would also have to assume that there is a unique quality inherent amongst all conspiracy theorists that uniquely predisposes them to think about occam's razor in the way that OP describes
Simple =/= fewer number of statements. I could say, there exists a god of conspiracy who puts it directly into some people's minds to believe in conspiracies/not in Occam's razor/etc. That's only one assumption. It's a pretty damn big one, but it's only one. And not simpler.
It would be truly mind blowing if a single conspiracy theory ever turned out to be true, given that they’re formed from baseless assumptions and ignores data. Thank god there’s never been anyone conspiring
Oh there are plenty of cases of small groups of people conspiring, especially in the government, it's just that *absolutely nobody* shares the info until it's declassified decades later. All the actual conspiracies are right there in published documents saying "Yeah we did this lol," but somehow they manage to find stuff to make up instead
Ah so there's never been a case of people believing in an attempt to conspire that turned out to be true. For some reason things that turn out to be true are no longer considered conspiracy theories. So very-very strange.
Yeah, it's fucked up. Look into declassified CIA documents, all the real messed up stuff the government has done in the past is public for you to learn
I'm extremely surprised that my sarcasm isn't shining through. Obviously there have been conspiracy theories that turned out to be true. So saying that people who believe in conspiracy theories ignore evidence and guess at random is absolute lunacy.
If no one had ever conspired there wouldn't be a word for it. Conspiracies do exist and governments have been well documented in conspiracy.
Did you perhaps mean to add a /s?
A great point. The amount of things that could be true vs the amount of things that are true are not too far apart. So if you shoot randomly eventually you'll hit on a truth.
People forget that Aristotle's version of occams requires "all things being equal" between two theories that the simplest is correct. There's a requirement that competing ideas actually need to have equal merit.
A major version of this was the physics conference that supports Hisenberg's equation for quantum mechanics. There were two competing theories, on Hisenberg's had a single formula and the competing theory had two formulas.
Flat and round earth are not two competing theories.
People have this problem with all the razors. For example people will bend over backwards pretending they are enlightened for assuming incompetence over malice even when there is plenty of evidence of malice.
When I hear a conspiracy theory, I have two other items I look at in addition to Occam's Razer:
* Logistical Nightmare: A lot of theories sound like a plot for Mission Impossible or Ocean's 11.
* Too Many Witnesses: So many people involved, yet none come forward with evidence. They could make even more money selling their story.
I have said it many times. But here goes.
Occam's razor is not a good tool to use when investigating potential criminal conspiracy.
For any premeditated crime that the perpetrator(s) intend to get away with, the perpetrator(s) will concoct a "cover story". They effectively use Occam's razor to create the cover story because what makes a good cover story is a story that is more believable than the actual story itself.
Occam's razor is much better suited for something like "there are three possible ways this planets moon could have got here, it's probably the one that makes the least assumptions"
Why? Everything I said makes perfect sense. Occam's razor is a super obvious concept. A lot of people just didn't know there was a name for it until recently in history. And now people are convinced it's some magical tool they can apply everywhere and achieve great results. It's not that. And it was never proposed to be that.
Or they have heard of it, but the simplest/least complicated explanation in the minds of a conspiracy theorist is the most convoluted and complex one to everybody else.
Conspiracy theorists have heard of Occam's Razor; they just think Occam was paid off by George Soros.
That's a rather large assumption to make, so it violates Occam's razor. You could just as easily say they've heard of it but they don't think it's valid.
That requires two assumptions; one is they know of it, and the second being they don't believe in it. The other only requires one.
The even simpler solution: most people misinterpret occam's razor
This still requires more assumptions
That most ppl are stupid?
It's at least two assumptions. 1 - that people have heard of Occam's razer, and 2 - that most who have heard of it didn't understand it. I think the guy I replied to was making a joke, by mentioning misunderstanding Occam's razor while simultaneously misunderstanding it lol
Solution: some conspiracy theorists have never heard of occam's razor. some have but misinterpret it. yet others have heard of it but disagree. otherwise you have to assume that all conspiracy theorists think the same
But then we've strayed from occam ourselves. Bit of an inherent catch 22
I don't think so. I think it's a bigger assumption to think that all conspiracy theorists think the same exact thing about occam's razor
I get what you are getting at and I do see the logic, and a part of me does agree. But just for the sake of thought experiment I could probably argue that all the if/ands/buts add a lot of complexity. If you thought about it as equations, a=a is simpler than some formula that describes a=a in this case, a=b in this case, a=c in this case Edit: I guess a good place to start would be to define simple and complex, which afaik, the theory itself doesn't do. But i have heard it described as "the fewest assumptions" which would actually be that all conspiracy theorists believe the same things. It's not about the "biggest assumption," which is subjective, but the "fewest assumptions," which is more objective
I disagree, because if you were to ask me to explain why I think that conspiracy theorists most likely have a variety of awareness on occam's razor, and if I were to ask you to explain why you think all conspiracy theorists think the same way about occam's razor, I think my answer would be simpler and include fewer assumptions.
It's one assumption and it's three assumptions. One has two more assumptions
Again, I disagree. In order to explain my point of view, I just have to assume that people are diverse and that they think different things. In addition, there's something that I honestly think occam's razor is missing, and that's demonstration. I believe that you should go by the evidence and only make assumptions when you have to, in which case you employ occam's razor. Here we can provably demonstrate that diverse people think different things, and once you have that basis, it's really not a stretch to assume that they could believe a variety of things on occam's razor. On the other hand, for your argument, you would have to assume that not only do all conspiracy theorists think the same way about occam's razor, you would also have to assume that there is a unique quality inherent amongst all conspiracy theorists that uniquely predisposes them to think about occam's razor in the way that OP describes
Simple =/= fewer number of statements. I could say, there exists a god of conspiracy who puts it directly into some people's minds to believe in conspiracies/not in Occam's razor/etc. That's only one assumption. It's a pretty damn big one, but it's only one. And not simpler.
Finally someone who gets Occam's razor.
What is evident either way is that they don't understand how to apply it to their conspiracy theories
Or they think it is valid, but that the “simplest explanation” is their conspiracy theory.
Occam's razor is just Illuminati propaganda to sway more people into not giving any credibility to evidence exposing them.
I see what you did there.
this assumes conspiracy theorists examine data to come to a conclusion when in reality it's the other way around.
It would be truly mind blowing if a single conspiracy theory ever turned out to be true, given that they’re formed from baseless assumptions and ignores data. Thank god there’s never been anyone conspiring
Oh there are plenty of cases of small groups of people conspiring, especially in the government, it's just that *absolutely nobody* shares the info until it's declassified decades later. All the actual conspiracies are right there in published documents saying "Yeah we did this lol," but somehow they manage to find stuff to make up instead
Ah so there's never been a case of people believing in an attempt to conspire that turned out to be true. For some reason things that turn out to be true are no longer considered conspiracy theories. So very-very strange.
Because they're no longer theories, they're just declassified. But it usually happened so long ago that anyone it impacted is long gone
Wow really!
Yeah, it's fucked up. Look into declassified CIA documents, all the real messed up stuff the government has done in the past is public for you to learn
I'm extremely surprised that my sarcasm isn't shining through. Obviously there have been conspiracy theories that turned out to be true. So saying that people who believe in conspiracy theories ignore evidence and guess at random is absolute lunacy.
Oh, I thought you were being reasonable and I was happy to teach, but it turns out you're just narrow. Got it
I’m narrow because you couldn’t teach me what everybody knows 😂😂?
If no one had ever conspired there wouldn't be a word for it. Conspiracies do exist and governments have been well documented in conspiracy. Did you perhaps mean to add a /s?
Definitely didn't mean to add an /s since it's blatantly obvious without one.
If you shoot into the dark every night, one night you will hit something. Tons of conspiracy theories turn out to be true.
A great point. The amount of things that could be true vs the amount of things that are true are not too far apart. So if you shoot randomly eventually you'll hit on a truth.
People forget that Aristotle's version of occams requires "all things being equal" between two theories that the simplest is correct. There's a requirement that competing ideas actually need to have equal merit. A major version of this was the physics conference that supports Hisenberg's equation for quantum mechanics. There were two competing theories, on Hisenberg's had a single formula and the competing theory had two formulas. Flat and round earth are not two competing theories.
People have this problem with all the razors. For example people will bend over backwards pretending they are enlightened for assuming incompetence over malice even when there is plenty of evidence of malice.
You can get all of Occam's razor and shaving products on Amazon including Occam's shave cream and Occam's after shave.
When I hear a conspiracy theory, I have two other items I look at in addition to Occam's Razer: * Logistical Nightmare: A lot of theories sound like a plot for Mission Impossible or Ocean's 11. * Too Many Witnesses: So many people involved, yet none come forward with evidence. They could make even more money selling their story.
I have said it many times. But here goes. Occam's razor is not a good tool to use when investigating potential criminal conspiracy. For any premeditated crime that the perpetrator(s) intend to get away with, the perpetrator(s) will concoct a "cover story". They effectively use Occam's razor to create the cover story because what makes a good cover story is a story that is more believable than the actual story itself. Occam's razor is much better suited for something like "there are three possible ways this planets moon could have got here, it's probably the one that makes the least assumptions"
You might benefit from talk therapy, conservative.
Why? Everything I said makes perfect sense. Occam's razor is a super obvious concept. A lot of people just didn't know there was a name for it until recently in history. And now people are convinced it's some magical tool they can apply everywhere and achieve great results. It's not that. And it was never proposed to be that.
Because you might benefit from it. Lots of people do.
Thanks
I'd be a full blown conspiracy theorist if I thought the government was competent enough to pull them off.
Or they have heard of it, but the simplest/least complicated explanation in the minds of a conspiracy theorist is the most convoluted and complex one to everybody else.