| Author | The Principle: Stonehenge |
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 3186
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 05-02-2014 at 23:52
"I think at this stage it's important not to be sidetracked by a minor point and to stick to the main one which has occupied several pages, namely,
providing one competing hypothesis, showing the explanatory power and parsimony which supports your criticism. "
Your reply at 13.46 appears to address that point, maybe we should call it The Parsimony Point, so please, for clarity for other people reading this thread let's let the Parsimony Point which has already covered so many pages be addressed and resolved before the thread is taken into any other directions. "
Rune , I don't think what I was complaining about was minor .
The parsimony disagreement was really about how it is used not really how appropriate it is in dealing with the problems with one particular explanation , which I believe is better critqued by a list of points , the fact that these points also provide a more parsimonious explanation is secondary .
George
 Profile
 Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2328
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-02-2014 at 07:41
Quote:
| Jon , the principle of parsimony doesn't even state the which is most parsimonious must be true , which obviously entails that it can't indicate something else is wrong . |
|
The “most parsimonious” argument can be used when hypotheses of similar explanatory power are being compared. If a more complex theory provides a better explanation for what exists than a simpler theory, then the parsimony rule usually ceases to apply.
Quote:
| All it can do is say that one is more parsimonious than another . That is what we find with the hypothetical suggestion(s) below and also all other basic theories that can explain the monument compared with an idea that does multply entities , which is the case with yours . |
|
They must be competing theories in the context George. For instance, I might believe that I could argue that the theory of Evolution is more parsimonious than the theory of Relativity. However I cannot use parsimony (in Occam's Razor) to judge that that the Theory of Relativity is less likely as a result: They are not competing theories.
Similarly, whilst the Theory of Relativity is more complex than the simpler earlier theories, parsimony is not used to compare them because the later theory gives a better explanation than earlier theories.
Quote:
| Are you giving up on the Aubreys as part of the model ? They certainly appeared to be part of it judging by the text in pt 2 . |
|
The Aubreys are just supporting background George, though they do form their own mini-hypothesis for the stage before the Stones were installed. I included the Aubreys because they show a potential sequence of development: It is weak partly because I haven't yet provided the supporting explanation for the proposed sequence that went before the Aubreys.
Part of the problem here is that I can't fully establish the missing link between explanations for the earlier monuments and Stonehenge (which then gives the full 'sweep' explaining why all this happened). The required "missing link" is something that Mike Parker Pearson has recently hypothesised to be true. If he can show it to be true, then I can introduce the earlier monuments to explain why Stonehenge came to be what it is, However, I don't believe that he, or anyone else, has yet provided enough evidence. If and when he does, I may well return to it.
However, this is likely to be decades away.
Quote:
| Similar data on the many other features of the monument and how they are supposed to fit into the model would be useful . Until then the problems have to remain in the theoretical , which is sufficient but practical problems can carry even more weight . |
|
Useful in what context? If there isn't much interest, it doesn't make a great deal of sense to devote time to going through every single extra detail: If you're not interested in a car, you're hardly going to be interested to know how many cylinders it has.
Quote:
| You have put quotes around something I never said . Why . |
|
The sentence was supposed to illustrate how to make a hypothesis George. In order to quote you I have to say something like “I am quoting you” rather than say “Lets say we expand your statement”. If I had meant to quote you I would have used the word “you” rather than preface it with “let's say we”.
You've been using the “parsimony heuristic”. This heuristic is usually used to compare hypotheses but, to date, you haven't supplied a single hypothesis to support your criticisms.
Anyways, it's been fun George.
All the best
Jon
[ This message was edited by: jonm on 2014-02-06 08:09 ]
Profile
 Email
Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 7178
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-02-2014 at 10:33
Returning to the opening post of this thread.
Unless You drop all pre concieved assumed thinkings , You will remain viewing universe from those assumed thoughts.
I tried to say earlier that everything in creation is the centre of it's universe.
Stonehenge is not at the centre of this planet, but every atom of it is the centre of it's universe.
No-thing in creation is seperate in any manner, and no thing actually exists seperately.
Universe is a substance that enables creation, and all of creation is heart centred, with a duality of spin flows empowering that creation, then comes in what causes the confusion, because every created heart centred form is within another such add infirnitum.
Due to the geometric substance of universe , there is a self similer system at all scale in universe, and stonehenge is sited precisely on the geometry relative to the heart centre of this planet, and it's construction/s were to fit that.
But the scalar aspect of larger heart centred geometries is constantly varying the consequences down in scale , thus a need to vary the constructions.
The REAL secret is the duality of spin that enables creation and maintains creation, and it is what causes the illusions that are then presented as facts.
This planet is not moving as told, stonehenge was an attempt to show how heart centred creation operates, and why in desperation hearts will have been offered as sacrifice to a system that never stays constant in an attempt to keep it still.
Your heart is the centre of Your universe, but the atoms composing You are all individually heart centred.
Unless a comprehension of the duality of flows is reached ,You will not be able to make sense of what I am endlessly waffling on about , but the ditch and embankments reveal the self same strange constructions across these lands.
The hills and valleys are consequences of these flows, the weather is a consequence of these flows.
No thing can exist without a near balance of these flows.
And it is possible this near balance is currently going out of balance.
Locally We may need to undertake manipulation of the flows routes to enable creation to maintain and enable further creation, and that is what our ancestors strove so fabulously to achieve, and it's still operating to a degree, but We have become blind to it after milleniums of not needing to comprehend creation.
Write Me off as eccentric or mad, but I am at one with those flows.
cropredy
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 3186
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-02-2014 at 11:13
Jon, The above is the basis of your error .A competing hypothesis need not indicate that another is wrong and as I have pointed out when the principle of parsimony is involved it is not even expected . This is obvious , if you had read the link you posted many posts back you would have noticed that “It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.” And also “In the scientific method, Occam's Razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result “
Your idea is in competition with others , you had said earlier “ the most parsimonious explanation for the sarsen monument is that it (Stonehenge) was built to be a description of a Geocentric Universe which focuses on describing the solstices. “ .There are competing explanations for the sarsen monument , even you know that , or you couldn’t have made the comment , further , you have claimed more than the sarsen monument as being part of the model , which in turn is in competition with other more parsimonious explanations for the monument i.e .they don’t multiply entities as your model does .
“The “most parsimonious” argument can be used when hypotheses of similar explanatory power are being compared. If a more complex theory provides a better explanation for what exists than a simpler theory, then the parsimony rule usually ceases to apply. “
When the more “complex “suggestion has multiplied entities as is the case with yours , parsimony is the ideal tool to highlight the problems .If each of your entities, among those listed , was shown to be true then they would not be entities ,it is the sheer number /complexity and the lack of proof for each step that exacerbates the problem . If anything it is arguable that the principle should not be applied to your suggestion because it has yet to have passed the theoretical scrutiny test .
I know what a hypothesis is ,I don’t need a lesson in that . I have never come a cross a situation where others make up fake comments in order to explain something , even going to the extent of suggesting the comment was ludicrous and prefacing the comment with “and then you add “ .Why not respond to what others say and make your own points . Have you ever experienced anyone doing that to you ?
There is no need for parsimony in relation to the Aubreys ,they were included in the model in pt 2 ,and the description there can be shown to be wrong . There is a more parsimonious explanation for the Avenue and station stones but the detail for the rest of the monument, which supposedly provides more support for the idea has yet to be seen . That info would be useful because it is the practical detail , if that can be shown to in error then the case is closed . I assume that you must have that detail or you wouldn’t have made the ““There are no unexplained features “ claim in the first place .
George
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2328
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-02-2014 at 12:15
Quote:
| I know what a hypothesis is ,I don’t need a lesson in that . I have never come a cross a situation where others make up fake comments in order to explain something , even going to the extent of suggesting the comment was ludicrous and prefacing the comment with “and then you add “ .Why not respond to what others say and make your own points . Have you ever experienced anyone doing that to you ? |
|
George. I apologise if my use of language has offended you. This was not an intentional slur on your character, it was purely intended to illustrate. I expanded the statement to show what a hypothesis that I can respond to would look like.
I have reviewed my post again to see if I can understand your objection:
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=Forum&file=viewtopic&topic=6043&forum=4&start=90
Having done this, I believe that it is not possible for us to have a debate using a language that the other can understand. It would therefore be best to cease further correspondence.
Thanks for all your help in the past George.
Jon
Profile
Email
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 3186
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-02-2014 at 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
Profile
Reply
|
Runemage
Joined:
15-07-2005
Messages: 3932
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-02-2014 at 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
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2328
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-02-2014 at 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
Profile
Email
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 3186
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-02-2014 at 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
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 3186
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-02-2014 at 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
Profile
Reply
|
Runemage
Joined:
15-07-2005
Messages: 3932
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-02-2014 at 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
Profile
Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 7178
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-02-2014 at 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
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 3186
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-02-2014 at 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
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 3186
OFF-Line
| Posted 07-02-2014 at 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
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2328
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 08-01-2022 at 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.
Profile
Email
Reply
|
|
