I once read a book about William Ockham (Occam) rather quickly--it's written by Matthew C. Menges (O.F.M., Ph.D.) and the book is quite detailed. One important point struck me in this work:
"Nor can we say that Ockham is a nominalist, if nominalism means a denial of universal concepts, for he surely holds them. His universal knowledge is founded ultimately on intuition, cognitio in se, and so it is knowledge of reality. But we do not know God immediately, or in se" (The Concept of Univocity Regarding the Predication of God and Creature According to William Ockham, page 175).
So do you think we should avoid describing Ockham as a nominalist? I guess it depends on how one defines nominalism.
Anthony Kenny concurs with Menges: he calls Ockham a terminist.
Thursday, May 02, 2019
William Ockham the Nominalist?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
https://www.academia.edu/1336972/Explanation_in_Biology_Lets_Razor_Ockhams_Razor
https://www.wsl.ch/lud/biodiversity_events/papers/Coelho_et_al-2019-Ecography.pdf
Did you notice what the author said about parsimony (i.e., Ockham's razor) on p. 140 of the academia.edu article? It's not a one size fits all solution, but it applies within a circumscribed setting. I agree with that view.
It's interesting that William of Ockham never uttered the famed razor anyway. He wrote something close to it, but not those exact words. See https://www.academia.edu/1336972/Explanation_in_Biology_Lets_Razor_Ockhams_Razor
There is a fundamental sense in which Ockham's razor is likely correct.
As an example, let's say we're trying to explain what accounts for the various properties of water. Is it something physical/molecular or does water have the properties it does because of some Platonic form? Ockham's razor might help us to decide toward which side we'd incline. Furthermore, Ockham's razor works if we qualify it with ceteris paribus thinking.
Defining elements & defining interactions need very different principles.
http://amasci.com/freenrg/wasser.html
I do not know if all things are equal. Possibly a dangerous assumption to make.
When considering the level of interactions at the ecological level I cannot see how the theory works when compared to all the implications of the second law of thermodynamics. It demands such a wide spread of interactions- complexity.
No one to my knowledge claims that Ockham's razor explains everything in science or philosophy. That is not what its advocates suggest.
Ceteris paribus means, all other things being equal. That's different from saying all things are equal. See https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ceteris-paribus/
Ockham's razor works within a specific or determinate context--we can't force a theory or idea to do something it wasn't meant to do. But experience has taught us that, ceteris paribus, simpler explanations are superior to more complex ones. Another way to formulate this idea is to say that hypotheses should not be multiplied unnecessarily. For example, heliocentrism requires fewer assumptions and has more explanatory power than geocentrism does.
On thermodynamics, see https://www.jstor.org/stable/1558156?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Many examples can be given to illustrate the razor's efficacy including beliefs about the soul, God's triunity, and gravitation.
Please excuse the ad panels but this is an interesting article.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/08/occams-razor/495332/
I found this authors work interesting in the past, especially his book - critical mass.
The Occam's razor produces the most expedient solution. Particularly as something to be exploited in the short term in many cases.
The aim of science is to seek the simplest explanation of complex facts. We are apt to fall into the error of thinking that the facts are simple because simplicity is the goal of our quest. The guiding motto in the life of every natural philosopher should be ``Seek simplicity and distrust it.'' - Alfred North Whitehead
Thanks for the Atlantic article. I don't want to simply attack the messenger, but Whitehead had his own unorthodox ideas. I agree with him in the sense that philosophy by nature is distrustful, skeptical, and critical. Philosophers question almost everything and philosophy is open-ended. His words do not just apply to Ockham's razor.
But I stress again that no one is suggesting the razor applies in all circumstances or that it should be used without qualifications. My experience has been that the razor is often caricatured, misrepresented or misunderstood. As I mentioned earlier, there are plenty of examples where more complex explanations failed to explain reality. Geocentrism/heliocentrism being one example. I think the Platonic Forms are another example: why water has the properties it does is not adequately explained by the Platonic Forms. Nor does the complex theory of evolution account for the universe's origin. Lastly, as Witnesses, we are taught to present the kingdom message with simplicity. But let's not confuse a simple explanation with a simplistic one.
There's a reason why Einstein basically toppled Newton. Which view of the universe was simpler and more accurate?
Here are some critiques of Ball's thinking along with other perspectives on Ockham's razor:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/simplici/
https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/has-occams-razor-distorted-history-of-science/
https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/ockhams-razors-a-users-manual/
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11098-016-0747-7
From the first article "Simpler theories are frequently said to be more “beautiful” or more “elegant” than their rivals; they might also be easier to understand and to work with." - Expedient "to work with". How many times do these work out in the long term & how much damage do they cause. The planets paths debate is decided by more data and less theories does this relate to being simpler or more complex.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wV8ghJJeRfwC&pg=PA153&lpg=PA153&dq=occam%27s+razor+ghaia&source=bl&ots=tG3DMHrLLn&sig=ACfU3U2i6DdK-K1uMJ5nw3Ul6zxzKkV41g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiC7ejKtYriAhWzURUIHbR9BFk4ChDoATABegQIBBAB#v=onepage&q=occam's%20razor%20ghaia&f=false
IMOH no action should be taken with insufficient data. The problem is knowing when it is sufficient.
I will just reiterate that Ockham's razor applies to certain situations, not all: it often happens to be the case that the simpler explanation is best. People often seek more complex reasons for why something happens, but they overlook simple reasons like appealing to the paranormal to explain dreams or believing that light needs a medium in order to travel through space. And what about Freudian psychoanalysis, which a recent article said has been rebutted time and again? Yes, more data may help us to expel false beliefs; however, so does the principle of simplicity. But I emphasize that the simpler/simplest explanation is one criterion that should be used in certain settings.
Ockham's razor prevents the unnecessary multiplication of entities or hypotheses. I've discussed how the Platonic Forms are extravagant and unnecessary postulations that the razor could help us excise. Another example is dualism versus materialism. Which theory is true? What criteria help us to decide? Does simplicity play a role in the decision?
Grammar and exegesis could also illustrate the benefits of Ockham's razor.
https://community.alteryx.com/t5/Data-Science-Blog/Simple-is-Best-Occam-s-Razor-in-Data-Science/ba-p/355159
Looking at the tool in practise, the pitfalls become apparent. Especially when "noise reduction" is applied.
The article to which you linked provided some good qualifications for Ockham's razor as well. ?In logic, we say don't box with a shadow or strawman, that is, a caricature of someone's position. Where is anyone in the know saying that Ockham's razor applies to all circumstances at all times and places? The article says it's a guiding principle--not something cast in stone.
"When there are multiple competing hypotheses (or models), the one that makes fewer assumptions will typically be the one that is selected. This is not a fundamental commandment of problem-solving or the scientific method. Rather, it is a general preference for simple explanations, in part because simpler theories are more easily tested and understood."
I've given plenty of examples where simplicity did prove to be the best. However, we can't confuse simple with simplistic.
Doesn't this demonstrate neither simple or simplistic but rather simplified. There is a saying sometimes used in engineering - close enough for jazz.
I get your point but I would only use it for initial approximation. Some of the example applications you have mentioned have significant debate as to which points are the most simplified or straight foreward.
I think it demonstrates that Ockham's razor has to be contextualized and used properly; using simplicity as a guideline seems to work in some contexts and possibly through the whole process.
In addition to scientific examples, I believe that exegesis and how we understand grammar both illustrate the value of Ockham's razor along with metaphysics, a domain in which it primarily applies.
Greek and Hebrew grammar are both complex. However, when we try to explain certain facets of grammar, it seems that the simplest explanation turns out to be the right one. I could see how Ockham's razor might help explain textual variants too.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Where_do_you_use_Occams_Razor_in_your_research
This QA is an interesting read.
Thanks, that was interesting, and I guess you noticed that most commenters in that discussion had a positive view of Ockham's razor, but they also pointed out its limitations and proper applications. I know the principle is not set in stone, but it is valuable when used properly.
An article that tries to dispel wrong interpretations of the razor.
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2012/02/using-ockhams-razor-as-an-axe
Post a Comment