Viewing last 25 versions of comment by Eeveeinheat on image #1274743

"[@EquestrianScholar":](/1274743#comment_5537873
)  
It's not just about simplest, it's about the one with the least assumptions. And when I say Occam's Razor I'm not using it as an argument, but an example of how making too many assumptions is bad. It's not always right, of course, but it does happen to be right more than often. It only really works when you have very few variables, though. An example of this in action is logic problems.

Take Voltorb flip in Pokemon, as an analogy. Imagine there are two places that seem likely to have coins. However, one has the chance of having two voltorbs under it, and it might a three coin, while the other has the chance to have a two coins, one coin, or a single voltorb. You would always go with less voltorb every time because making the assumption that the three coins are under there has one extra "assumption", even if the result would get you less coin (which could be parallel to the appeal of the idea). It's a simplistic example that is obvious, but sometimes real life is like that as well.


 
Also, this isn't science, but fiction. That means no answer is correct unless the writer says it is, so you have to take into account contextual clues instead. Ignoring the context clues you might assume she doesn't know how to fly and needs to learn, but if you take them into account, you'll see all the evidence that she should have been able to fly from an earlier age, regardless of skill. The answer with the most assumptions is assuming the writers just screwed up, then assuming everything about Pound Cake flying and all the young pegasi we see flying is just a fluke. Even Fluttershy can fly. Taking it at face value requires the least assumptions, making a complex issue simple.


 
Also, you misinterpreted the article you linked. It's talking about scientific theories, not actually simple ideas. It's talking about taking how science makes complex things simple, not that the answer is always simple. Also, Occam's Razor talks about the answer with the least assumptions from two equally likely ideas, so the fact the author used creationism and, well, scientific thought as an example of Occam's razor gone wrong is a fallacy. They are not equal in any meaning of the word.

"@EquestrianScholar":/1274743#comment_5537873
It's not just about simplest, it's about the one with the least assumptions. And when I say Occam's Razor I'm not using it as an argument, but an example of how making too many assumptions is bad. It's not always right, of course, but it does happen to be right more than often. It only really works when you have very few variables, though. An example of this in action is logic problems.

Take Voltorb flip in Pokemon, as an analogy. Imagine there are two places that seem likely to have coins. However, one has the chance of having two voltorbs under it, and it might a three coin, while the other has the chance to have a two coins, one coin, or a single voltorb. You would always go with less voltorb every time because making the assumption that the three coins are under there has one extra "assumption", even if the result would get you less coin (which could be parallel to the appeal of the idea). It's a simplistic example that is obvious, but sometimes real life is like that as well.

Also, this isn't science, but fiction. That means no answer is correct unless the writer says it is, so you have to take into account contextual clues instead. Ignoring the context clues you might assume she doesn't know how to fly and needs to learn, but if you take them into account, you'll see all the evidence that she should have been able to fly from an earlier age, regardless of skill. The answer with the most assumptions is assuming the writers just screwed up, then assuming everything about Pound Cake flying and all the young pegasi we see flying is just a fluke. Even Fluttershy can fly. Taking it at face value requires the least assumptions, making a complex issue simple.

Also, you misinterpreted the article you linked. It's talking about scientific theories, not actually simple ideas. It's talking about taking how science makes complex things simple, not that the answer is always simple. Also, Occam's Razor talks about the answer with the least assumptions from two equally likely ideas, so the fact the author used creationism and, well, scientific thought as an example of Occam's razor gone wrong is a fallacy. They are not equal in any meaning of the word.

"@EquestrianScholar":/1274743#comment_5537873
It's not just about simplest, it's about the one with the least assumptions. And when I say Occam's Razor I'm not using it as an argument, but an example of how making too many assumptions is bad. It's not always right, of course, but it does happen to be right more than often. It only really works when you have very few variables, though. An example of this in action is logic problems.

Take Voltorb flip in Pokemon, as an analogy. Imagine there are two places that seem likely to have coins. However, one has the chance of having two voltorbs under it, and it might a three coin, while the other has the chance to have a two coins, one coin, or a single voltorb. You would always go with less voltorb every time because making the assumption that the three coins are under there has one extra "assumption", even if the result would get you less coin (which could be parallel to the appeal of the idea). It's a simplistic example that is obvious, but sometimes real life is like that as well.

Also, this isn't science, but fiction. That means no answer is correct unless the writer says it is, so you have to take into account contextual clues instead. Ignoring the context clues you might assume she doesn't know how to fly and needs to learn, but if you take them into account, you'll see all the evidence that she should have been able to fly from an earlier age, regardless of skill. The answer with the most assumptions is assuming the writers just screwed up, then assuming everything about Pound Cake flying and all the young pegasi we see flying is just a fluke. Even Fluttershy can fly. Taking it at face value requires the least assumptions, making a complex issue simple.

Also, you misinterpreted the article you linked. It's talking about scientific theories, not actually simple ideas. It's talking about taking how science makes complex things simple, not that the answer is always simple.

"@EquestrianScholar":/1274743#comment_5537873
It's not just about simplest, it's about the one with the least assumptions. And when I say Occam's Razor I'm not using it as an argument, but an example of how making too many assumptions is bad. It's not always right, of course, but it does happen to be right more than often. It only really works when you have very few variables, though. An example of this in action is logic problems.

Take Voltorb flip in Pokemon, as an analogy. Imagine there are two places that seem likely to have coins. However, one has the chance of having two voltorbs under it, and it might a three coin, while the other has the chance to have a two coins, one coin, or a single voltorb. You would always go with less voltorb every time because making the assumption that the three coins are under there has one extra "assumption", even if the result would get you less coin (which could be parallel to the appeal of the idea). It's a simplistic example that is obvious, but sometimes real life is like that as well.

Also, this isn't science, but fiction. That means no answer is correct unless the writer says it is, so you have to take into account contextual clues instead. Ignoring the context clues you might assume she doesn't know how to fly and needs to learn, but if you take them into account, you'll see all the evidence that she should have been able to fly from an earlier age, regardless of skill. The answer with the most assumptions is assuming the writers just screwed up, then assuming everything about Pound Cake flying and all the young pegasi we see flying is just a fluke. Even Fluttershy can fly. Taking it at face value requires the least assumptions, making a complex issue simple.

"@EquestrianScholar":/1274743#comment_5537873
It's not just about simplest, it's about the one with the least assumptions. And when I say Occam's Razor I'm not using it as an argument, but an example of how making too many assumptions is bad. It's not always right, of course, but it does happen to be right more than often. It only really works when you have very few variables, though. An example of this in action is logic problems.

Take Voltorb flip in Pokemon, as an analogy. Imagine there are two places that seem likely to have coins. However, one has the chance of having two voltorbs under it, and it might a three coin, while the other has the chance to have a two coins, one coin, or a single voltorb. You would always go with less voltorb every time because making the assumption that the three coins are under there has one extra "assumption", even if the result would get you less coin (which could be parallel to the appeal of the idea). It's a simplistic example that is obvious, but sometimes real life is like that as well.