| Review your Reply |
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2329
from UK
 OFF-Line
|  New Message Posted!2022-01-08 12:06
So, 8 or 9 years ago, this thread caused a bit of backlash
Now exploring the reasons why on the private Twitter account.
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 3186
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2014-02-07 18:27
“Rune , quite agree ,the parsimony problem should be near resolution .”
But it got sidetracked with a hyper straw man and summary that will hopefully be revised . Parsimony isn’t that difficult .Wiki as always is not ideal but it is succinct “ Parsimony states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected . i.e. start from the simplest possible explanation and make it more complex only if ,and when necessary . As mentioned a while ago it is only an heuristic and cannot provide the truth or falsity of a theory and Jon’s comment “To be in competition, something about your hypothesis must indicate that the Geocentric hypotheses can not be true. “ simply isn’t true . That comment may have been influenced by “ACH “ Analysis of Competing Hypothesis “which is method used by the CIA and has nothing to do with parsimony.
“An hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon .”
The phenomenon in this case is the building of Stonehenge ,there are many theories , explanations , hypotheses that attempt to explain the monument ,these are the competing theories . Mot of us know what they are .
To simplify using earlier analogies , the theory of evolution cannot be more or less parsimonious than the theory of relativity and they are not competing theories as they both describe different phenomena .
George
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 3186
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2014-02-06 20:00
Rune ,to be specific my mention of parsimony was "But there is a group of monuments where solstice alignments are the most obvious and parsimonious explanations and Stonehenge is one , plus the concept is well attetestd for in ethnography both cosmologically and practically . " Note no mention as you suggested that "George suggested the discussion should proceed on Parsimonious terms. !" In fact if you go on to my next post "I say "parsimony doesn't equate with being true , it is only a heuristic that has stood us in good stead ." still no suggestion as you believed .Simply ,I never did suggest that , nobody did ,it was actually a diversion from the real problems .Yet it was the first comment of your summary ,
You could only have a done a cursory review but you did miss an important point that shows that despite the principle being quite basic it was clealy misunderstood when Jon said "that “To be in competition, something about your hypothesis must indicate that the Geocentric hypotheses can not be true. “ . That is just wrong ,and is clearly nothing to do with the principle but it is part of the same view that refuses to accept that competing explanations exist for the monumnet at Stonehenge ,how did you miss that ?
How do people manage to communicate on these boards that you visit , if the straw man taken to the next degree is acceptable and the slightly lesser problem of misused quotes ,can't they formulate arguments out of the content of the discussion without having to make stuff up ?
George
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 7179
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2014-02-06 19:51
Could all parsons and vicars and razor weilding occams please assemble in a seperate thread dedicated to them ...PLEASE.
In the opening post of this thread was a link to an upcoming film.
Mention in the trailor was made to dark matter and it been the largest part of universe, I believe they termed it as nothing.
I have been trying to describe the difference between nothing and no thing.
That which they term as nothing and dark matter , I term as universe and no thing.
Stonehenge is in My opinion an attempt to bridge between where there is things and no thing.
Stonehenge is composed of things, things which are part and parcel of this 3D reality of things.
The potentials that enable things to be or not to be , are the duality of spin flows that circulate at various diameters about stonehenge, and are detectable as such.
cropredy
|
Runemage
Joined:
15-07-2005
Messages: 3934
from UK
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2014-02-06 19:29
Hi George,
Parsimony, first mention, your post, page 3 Posted 31-01-2014 at 20:18 .
I am not being drawn into the meaning of Parsimony, nor any further discussion of it or the Principle and its impact on jonm's theory particularly as I played no part in the discussion itself.
"I have already said that I didn't think offence was the point of a made up quote prefaced with "and then you said " which in turn was preceded with ludicrous and as mentioned earlier that is not how you use quotes , and not how to make a point . puttinhg words into someone's mouth is bad enough putting it into quotes worse and preceding it with yet another made up "and then you said " is way beyond a straw man and is totally unnecessary in a discussion ,I have never encountered it before , have you ? "
I encounter a lot on discussion boards all over the internet George and as I've already explained at least once, that would be absolutely fine with me in exactly the way in which Jonm did it, as it was to illustrate one pertinent point. I'd have no objection at all and I don't know why you're repeatedly asking. This is my last word, in my opinion, it was fine in the context and the manner in which it was done, had he done that to my post I would not have minded in the slightest, nor would I have objected once let alone several times.
There's nothing more I can usefully add to this discussion and I do not wish to be drawn into an autopsy of anything that's been previously said.
The main discussion was between you and Jonm, he does not wish to continue, I have no more to add.
Rune
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 3186
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2014-02-06 17:58
"If the challenge is made that more hypotheses exist, a example must be supplied to support the challenge.
Jon , you have already described your idea as being the most parsimonious ,therfore there must be another hypothesis that you are aware of that it is in competition with . Whatever that hypothesis there is an example of a competing hypothesis .
Your idea is an attempt to explain the presence of the features at Stonehenge this is in competition with other explanations which you are well aware of ,whether from mainstream archaeology or alien landing sites . You can ignore these explanations and pretend they don't exist but they are the ones that also provide the basis for the many problems with your own .
"If the request to supply an example is repeatedly denied, the debate is automatically terminated. " See above .
What has been denied is any info that actually supports the explanation , one aspect that was part of the explalnation has been shown to be wrong and looks like it is no longer part of the idea , but there are meant to be other aspects that involve the rest of the monument ,if they exist why can we not see them ? If they don't what is there to support the idea other than a comment .
George
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 3186
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2014-02-06 17:40
"pared down to its bare bones, George suggested the discussion should proceed on Parsimonious terms. !"
Rune , I never suggested that .I suggested that there were more parsimonious explanations to Jon's idea . Jon had done the same when he said his idea was more parsimonious . Why didn't you say that Jon suggested the discussion should proceed on Parsimonious terms ? The discussion was about whether Parsimony/Occams razor could be applied to his idea and whether competing explanations existed for the building of Stonehenge . If anything it deflected criticism away from the idea by becoming a side show about the parsimony
The meaning of the Principle is straightforward .I pointed out two of the major aspects of it in my last post . "It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected."
Jon's explanation for the building of the monument is clearly in competition with all the other explanations ,do you really think it isn't ? Further , Jon described his idea as being the most parsimonious , so that comment in itself show that he accepts that there are other competing explanations .
“George thought there was no reason to do so “ I had already mentioned the competing theories , noted that by describing his idea as being the most parsimonious entails the existence of others , then listed the problems with Jon’s ideas which in itself is a competing theory when allied with the more parsimonious explantions of the monument , how many do want ?
I have already said that I didn't think offence was the point of a made up quote prefaced with "and then you said " which in turn was preceded with ludicrous and as mentioned earlier that is not how you use quotes , and not how to make a point . puttinhg words into someone's mouth is bad enough putting it into quotes worse and preceding it with yet another made up "and then you said " is way beyond a straw man and is totally unnecessary in a discussion ,I have never encountered it before , have you ?
George
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2329
from UK
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2014-02-06 17:30
Hi Rune
Quote:
| Maybe it would be an idea to leave this thread here unless either of you can see any future in continuing it? . |
|
I see no point in the continuation of the discussion Rune. I would use the following rationale for arguing that the debate is already terminated:
Arguments should be resolved using logic rather than authority.
If a hypothesis is the only hypothesis for a certain set of unexplained phenomena, it automatically becomes the most of whatever term you wish to suggest. It is also the least.
If there are two hypotheses, one will be the least and the other the most of whatever description one wishes to use. It's also possible that there will be an exact tie.
Once it has been shown that two hypotheses exist, one of those hypotheses can usually be agreed to be the least and the other can be agreed to be the most (of whatever term is adopted)
If the challenge is made that more hypotheses exist, a example must be supplied to support the challenge. Argument about what the descriptive term means is, in this instance, almost irrelevant.
If the request to supply an example is repeatedly denied, the debate is automatically terminated.
All the best
Jon
|
Runemage
Joined:
15-07-2005
Messages: 3934
from UK
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2014-02-06 16:45
Maybe it would be an idea to leave this thread here unless either of you can see any future in continuing it?
It appears to me that both of you were expecting something different from the Parsimony Point, that's my terminology for the discussion that's raged over several pages now about Parsimony allied to Occams Razor. Principle of Parsimony to be exact.
Pared down to its bare bones, George suggested the discussion should proceed on Parsimonious terms. Jonm expected George to provide a competing theory to his Geocentric one, otherwise comparison using Parsimony would be invalid. jonm stated this view several times "In order to use the Principle of Parsimony, you must choose competing hypotheses George.
The theory you have quoted is compatible. You can not use the Principle of Parsimony to compare compatible hypotheses. "
George thought there was no reason to do so and his view of competing theories or what information to provide to use the Principle of Parsimony was different to jonm's.
In other words, despite my clumsy precis, both posters have a different understanding of the Principle of Parsimony, its meaning and how it could be achieved. No progress will ever be made unless both sides agree a common ground for procedure.
As for the misattributed quote, I've reviewed it and still see it only as an illustration of the point Jonm was trying to make and no offence was intended.
That point was that what was originally said of itself was not a competing theory and to make it a competing theory, the extra text would need to have been added.
In that context, if anyone had done that to one of my posts, I'd not have batted an eyelid or thought it was insulting or anything else but an example. I'd have seen it as clarifying what I'd said was not a competing theory but adding the extra text would make it into a competing theory.
Returning to the Principle of Parsimony, what I'd suggest for future discussions where one side would like to invoke an ancient person's sharp object or a historical figure's Principle or any other particular rule under which the discussion should progress, then do make it crystal clear exactly what those rules entail for both sides before embarking on the discussion.
Rune
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 3186
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2014-02-06 13:28
Jon , I didn't take the comments as a slur . However they are not what I expect in a discussion , I am accustomed to being misquoted and misrepresented , but they belonged to another dimension beyond a straw man that I have never encountered before .
There have been numerous points I have made about the problems inherent in your idea which are perfectly understandable to anyone with a grasp of simple English , if obscure you could could have asked for clarification , but you haven't repsonded to them at all . Similarly , the minor points re. parsimony , concepts such as "competing hypotheses" , and how your idea is in competition with other suggestions that do provide a more parsimonious explanation , these are simple enough and need no analogies to clarify them . Again I imagine anyone reading them would find them perfectly clear and they have also been ignored .
George
|
|
