Occam's razor is for simpletons

My urge to kill rises anytime I present a coherent, albeit, not the most simple possible theory and retards who despise critical thinking spout that occam nonsense. How did this idea get so pervasive that the simplest theory is most often correct? Like holy fuck, is this an honest attempt to dumb down the population and not have them consider different avenues of thinking? I was just explaining to someone how I believed it was possible that a defendant was just the victim of a misunderstanding, and gave a list of reasons, and my opponent just said:

>he was found in a car with his pants unbuttoned, and with a passed out girl, naked from the waist down. Occam's razor, he assaulted her.

wtf. who could think like that?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

I agree, leaf. Occams isn't the best way to figure out the truth.

It's to look at RACE. If the guy was a nigger or a mudslime, then he was a rapist. If he was white, he wasn't. Pretty simple, but much more accurate than occams

You have missed one of the most important aspects of Occam's razor.

It says that the simplest explanation is the most *likely* one.

Not that it *is definitely* what happened.

It's not for simpletons, but like anything, can be abused by them.

It's not even science, it's mid 2000s internet bullshit.

You're retarded and you're misrepresenting the idea.

It's not the MOST SIMPLE, it's the one which requires the LEAST assumptions that is *probably more accurate*

Jesus. How does simple shit befuddle you?

Well, he was an arab. I never win. Spent most of the past year getting called a racist, but then I finally decide to give one of them the benefit of the doubt and I just get attacked as a sexist.

A retarded concept but sadly you'd be better off with this methodology than just straight up Occam's Razor

out of those two options, most simple requires the least amount of assumptions and is probably more accurate.

Occam's razor dictates that I am correct, because most simple is most simple.

You seem to be having trouble the the concept of probability.

>give [sandnigger] the benefit of the doubt
KEK
U
C
K

I base my thinking on evidence, not always merely identity and certainly not meme razors.

give me a source for the most simple solution most often being correct. And btw, I did call it "most often" in OP.

>occam's razor is most often right
>until it's used to prove me wrong

Neon Genesis Evangelion sucks.

No, Occam's Razor says that if your theory requires less assumptions, your theory is probably more accurate than other theories.

I don't get how you don't understand.

It doesn't dictate right or wrong, it dictates most versus least likely.

Like, let's say I'm doing paperwork in a room with an open window. I leave to use the bathroom and come back. When I do, I notice several papers on the floor.

Theory 1: the wind blew the papers on to the floor
Assumptions made: the wind was strong enough to blow around the papers

Theory 2: aliens did it
Assumptions made: intelligent alien life exists, they have FTL technology, they know where earth is, they have an interest in fucking up my paperwork...

You understand why Occam's Razor exists? It really is just a name given to common fucking sense.

Berserk is shit

she is passed out he is not the next day she says he kept giving her drinks and she blacks out.

>the reason for this is some idiots like to over complicate things with non-relevant factors.


I assume by your contortion of anger and exasperation of large words that you indeed have assaulted a woman and are looking for justification , You will not find such here.

>Go back to Sup Forums

>Give me a source for simple things being more likely to occur than complex things

Seriously?

>probably more accurate
>I am correct

>Well, he was an arab.
>I never win.


>argue for the innocence of an Arab suspected of rape
>"Somehow I never win"

I wonder why.

Also, your example is shit.

Occam's Razor says that they probably had sex.

You would need to make extra assumptions to see her getting raped.

There was a cab driver in Canada that got caught in the situation I described. I presented the following theory:

>The girl got in his cab, drunk, and told him where to go. But, along the way, she asked for him to stop so she could urinate or vomit. So he took her to a private area to do that. When she was outside of the cab, she passed out and pissed her pants. Her pants and panties were found covered in urine by investigators. The driver, then gets out, finds her asleep, and doesn't want this dirty girl on his seats, so he takes her pants off, which explains why the pants are found inside-out, because of the way they would have to be removed. Her shoes are also off, to make way for the pants. Her shirt remains on. But notably, his backseats are completely free of urine, as confirmed by analysts. So she neither sat there with her urine soaked pants on, nor pissed herself in the vehicle.
>So, when he carries her to the cab, and puts her in the backseat, with her pants off, he puts her head towards the passenger side door, reclines the driver's seat, and balances her legs on his seat to keep her wet legs off of his backseats. He then realizes that he can't drop her off like this, so he unbuttons his pants to give them to her, but then the cops approach and he realizes how shitty this looks and panics, trying to hide the panties he was holding.

then I got occam'd

>I base my thinking on evidence, not always merely identity and certainly not meme razors.
if the other theory is getting priority over yours because occam razor, the other theory had evidence too, leaf

source for this? I want a peer reviewed study telling me that the least assumptive solution more often turns out correct.

seriously. It's time to back up your claims.

Sounds like you got memed on by one of the best, kiddo.

Nothing personnel.

Didnt read fuck off

>I want a peer reviewed study

You can choke on my dick for the rest of the evening, but that's all you will get.

That is the literal definition of Occam's Razor.

u right senpai

this is why occams razor people don't have friends and have shorter lifespans. It's too many assumptions for them to live longer and I'd have to assume that they have social skills and that's just too many it's too many assumptions you can't have too many it's impossible

...

>people that use common sense are assholes, have no friends, and retarded

Really? I would say the same about dense fuckwits.

>can't source his claim
>it's true cause I say it is
>why are people calling me retarded?

Just someone please show me any corroborating evidence for occam's razor that isn't occam's razor. You've been brainwashed into not using your mind, to view critical thinking as a waste of time. Snap out of it.

you idiot its for situations like this to prevemt infinite solutions

you pick an apple up. what is the history of this apple

was it grown on a tree

or did another apple grow on a tree fell to the ground and made a new apple tree grow a new apple tree?

the simplest solution for everything would be:

>god did it

the apple?

>god

the tree?

>god

you?

>god again

Occam's razor is critical in science, retard
And it is a form of support in scientific data, however it is NOT absolute
Like all things science, nothing is ever absolutely certain

The law of parsimony is especially critical in defining evolution

Here's a simple way to understand it:

If you're at school, studying on a bench and you see another student running across you, he could be running from police, he could have stolen something, he could be running from the scene of a crime, a tiger may be chasing him, he could be running from an assailant...or, and this is the key here: he's just late to class.

Then how the fuck do you determine the probability of something being true, retarded leaf? There are infinite hypotheses to explain anything. Solomonoff Induction master race.

wow all those possibilities are equally likely and to make a judgement based on just a man running is the stupidest possible thing you could do and you should just turn you scientist card in if you thinks that reasonable.

>Now describe the properties possessed by this god that enable it to be the cause of all these
No, you've just shuffled the complexity elsewhere, you haven't actually found the "simplest" solution

Take a prior, Bayes' Theorem. Next.

Because people don't use it correctly. Occurs rarer doesn't say the simplist is correct but that the least assumptions is most likely.

he's got godpowers that let him do anything (by the way, people of normal intelligence know that this is already included in the definition of god, but you apparently need it spelled out for you directly)

It's a theory. It's a process.

It's like saying "prove the scientific method"

Wrong, friend. They are NOT all equally likely.
I guarantee you if you record data of every kid that is running on campus, I guarantee you an overwhelming amount would be running because they are late to class.

That means they are NOT all *equally* likely. it sounds like you've never taken a statistics or science course ever.

I suggest you not embarrass yourself further

Is that a no? You have no proof? It's okay to say no if the answer is no, you don't need to hide behind a deceptive facade.

shes so beautiful

A FUCKING LEAF

F
U
C
K
I
N
G

L
E
A
F

>takes extra evidence into account

lmao, you can't do that with occam's razor. All you have is a man running. That's all you know. Yeah, maybe if you do something like ask him: "hey, why are you running pal?" You could find out, but without anything like that, the possibility he is running from the cops or for class is equally likely.

You are such a flaming faggot OP, I can't believe it.

Another important point: all things being equal. Good luck with that.

No. In Occam's razor, You COMPARE the extra evidence and deduct which one has the less implication.

What you're telling me, Is that I can claim loud and clear

>The world was created yesterday
And you can't do shit about it.

one reliable source is all it takes. To use the razor I despise for a moment, let's see what conclusion I could draw here:

>People on the internet love being right
>However, no one has shoved the proof in my face yet

Ergo, simplest solution is, the proof doesn't exist. The razor is for retards.

says who? show me the official list of razor rules.

...

WTF are you faggots talking about? Occam's Razor is "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity". He was arguing against polytheism that posited tons of different gods to explain different phenomena. He basically said "Why have a god of the sea, a god of the sky and a god of the earth instead of one god of everything?

It is a counter to people using atomized arguments where they attribute things to an endless series of explanations. It has absolutely nothing to do with probability or prediction.

Next time, just call whoever you are arguing with a nigger. That is always the simplest answer.

There is no actual rules, But there are formulations which go by the general idea.

If none of these satisfy you, you are welcome to make your own.

You really don't get it. Probably why you're not a science major, or even likely educated at all

Here you go
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

"Possible explanations can become needlessly complex. It is coherent, for instance, to add the involvement of leprechauns to any explanation, but Occam's razor would prevent such additions unless they were necessary."

Not sure if you're just retarded or just pretending, I don't see how hard it is to grasp this concept.

Stating that something is less likely or more likely literally means to compare an average which requires data.
>extra evidence
What was my initial evidence? I did not give extra evidence.

Please see me after class, user

She could have consented to sex and then passed out afterward from drunken fatigue, when she awoke she had no recollection of the events because she's an irresponsible black-out drunken whore.

"A woman cannot consent while drunk"

What is it about women that they are incapable of accepting responsibiltiy for their actions after drinking?

Last time I checked, if I go out and rape a girl, "sorry judge I was drunk is not a good enough excuse to remove responsibility from me.

But for women it is.

They are willing to go as low as to admit they are irresponsible, irrational beings who can't be held accountable for their own voluntary actions as an adult.

Any women who thinks this way should not leave the house without a male chaperone.

Maybe the Muslims are right after all....

This. It's literally a "tip" to encourage you to trim your argument of the unnecessary fat as so to make it more concise.

Retards like OP just heard the meme and ran with it.

fucking hell no one understands occam's razor, not the people OP is complaining about nor OP himself
occam's razor is and was never intended to be used as a substitute for argumentation, a proof, or even as a statistical generalization
it was intended for scientific inquiry: always start with testing the simplest solutions before progressing to more complex ones. it's a guideline for more efficient research purposes, not for fucking argumentation
so people who are asking to "prove" occam's razor are as dumb as the people using occam's razor to justify their arguments. it's applying a principle to a domain where it is irrelevant. it's like trying to use the laws of thermodynamics to judge foreign policy.

you're not longer worth the effort. Any rational person reading that will see through your dismal defence, so much so that any rebuttal I add would be redundant.

>he was found in a car with his pants unbuttoned, and with a passed out girl, naked from the waist down. Occam's razor, he assaulted her.
That's not what Occam's razor is. And here's your solution: learn about Occam's razor and you won't be baffled by bad arguments

OP, have you got a source for that?

You're the one making a bold claim here, it's you who needs to provide sources for your argument.

for what

>implying I can't enter in a trade agreement with someone because I think equilibrium will transfer their white hot wealth to my cold ass.

>wahhh i have nothing to counter-argue with because im a retard
You couldn't even answer my basic question.
Saying I'm not worth arguing is literally the definition of someone who has been defeated in an argument. Are you by any chance under 18? Because it sounds like it
Please stop posting.

People who use occam's razor to answer everything are people who are incapable of producing their own material... This should be obvious to you.

It isn't worth wasting time with anyone who spouts this nonsense.

>>he was found in a car with his pants unbuttoned, and with a passed out girl, naked from the waist down. Occam's razor, he assaulted her.

The occams razor of this situation is that they got drunk in a bar / party, meet each other and had sex. This kind of thing has been happening for literal centuries. THAT is the simplest explanation, and most likely, the right one.

He was unconsciously (or maybe on purpose) pushing out his agenda that every girl that has sex with someone who is not a 10/10 was raped because muh patriarchy