From: starr-daniel@yale.edu (Daniel Starr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Occam's Razor (was Re: Vatican finds Galileo 'Not Guilty')
Date: 16 Nov 1992 21:27:57 -0500
Organization: Yale University Science & Engineering UNIX(tm), New Haven, CT 06520-2158
NNTP-Posting-Host: minerva.cis.yale.edu

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Vatican Finds Galileo 'Not Guilty'
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: na
Organization: Yale University Science & Engineering UNIX(tm), New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Keywords: 

In article <1992Nov16.211310.29954@news.cs.brandeis.edu> aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>
>Occam's razor is a tool by which one chooses among various scientific models.
>It doesn't apply to choosing between a religious model and a scientific model.  
>The two are independant of each other.
>
>  -- Scott @Brandeis

I have to contradict you here.

Occam's Razor is applicable to ANY choice among externally indistinguishable 
systems.

Occam's Razor can be applied to
"the earth travels in an ellipse around the sun"
vs.
"the sun travels in a circle with epicycles around the earth"
vs.
"the sun is just an atmospheric illusion which behaves in a certain manner".

Occam's Razor can also be applied to
"the universe formed in a Big Bang 10 billion years ago"
vs.
"God created the universe (so that it looks like it's expanding) 5000 years ago"
vs.
"The universe as I currently perceive it is just a dream from which I will
eventually awake to find something completely different."

Occam's Razor doesn't know or care whether the explanation is scientific or
religious.  It is applicable if and only if the systems are indistinguishable,
regardless of what those systems are.  

William of Occam himself originally formulated and applied the rule in a
purely religious context -- he was arguing against the unnecessary creation
of scores of types of angels when far fewer satisfied the dictates of the
Church's Scholastic philosophy.  

At any rate, Occam's Razor can be applied to a comparison between scientific and
religious explanations of the same thing perfectly well, as long as the two
explanations are incapable of being distinguished in observation.

For example, Occam's Razor is applicable to the creation vs. evolution 
argument:  We have the two observationally equivalent hypotheses of 
"The natural processes of weeding out and mutation over time gradually 
produced the species that exist today" versus "God created
all existing species instantaneously, and placed the fossils just for 
decoration".  The former requires us merely to assume that processes we
observe even today were responsible for more dramatic changes over longer
periods of time in the past.  The latter hypothesis requires us to assume
the existence of an omnipotent being, further assume that this being was
motivated somehow to choose precisely _this_ set of species and no other,
and in fact assume that this being desired (why?) to deceive us or
decorate the planet by leaving things that by every appearance are remains
of creatures that once existed but no longer -- whereas the hypothesis
requires us to assume contrary to these indications that they never
existed.  The second hypothesis produces the same observations as the first.
Scientifically, they are equivalent.  Logically, the second one is far
worse than the first, because it requires us to create an omnipotent being
and assign truly inexplicable motivations to it, where the first hypothesis
merely requires us to assume that processes we observe today operated
in the past.

Similarly,  Occam's Razor applies to the pair of hypotheses you suggest:
H1:  "There was a massive explosion 10 billion years ago which
gave rise to the universe of today and its lingering evidence of such an
explosion."
H2:  "There is an omnipotent being who at some point in the past
created this universe and made it appear as if there was an explosion
as described in H1."

H1 requires us to assume that there was the explosion that the physical
evidence (microwave background, expanding universe, etc.) suggests.  It
also requires us to assume that something caused the explosion (there
are a number of necessarily vague hypotheses on this).

H2 requires us to assume that there exists an omnipotent being.  It also
requires us to assume that this being wished to create a universe in this
manner (as opposed to its infinite alternatives), and that further it wished
to make the universe appear in exactly such a manner as suggest the
explosion of H1.

On the grounds that the assumption of an omnipotent being with such strange
motivations is a substantially greater assumption than that of an explosion
which fits the evidence before us, Occam's Razor indicates H1 is a superior
hypothesis to H2.

Note that there are situations under which the Razor cuts the other way.
Suppose we have a very primitive tribe who wants to understand the seasons.
H1:  "There are four gods who are engaged in a ceaseless struggle for
control over the sky... for a while Summer will hold the upper hand (though
sometimes stumbling), then with renewed strength Fall conquers again..."
H2:  "This place we live in is part of an immense globe that rotates on an
axis slanted with respect to the sun and revolves around the sun.  When the
hemisphere we are on is slanted toward the sun, we receive the sun's rays
more directly and we are warmer."

H1 requires the tribe to assume the existence of beings much like them, save
that they live in the sky and are not visible (save for the weather they
kick up in their fights).  H2 requires all kinds of assumptions about the 
nature of their existence, their environment and the sun (and its rays) that
they have (as yet) no other evidence for.  H1 is preferable by Occam's Razor.

I note again that Occam's Razor is a rule of philosophy or metaphysics, not
of science.  It applies to any choice between systems that are equivalent
in producing the output we observe or require.  It is necessitated by the
existence for any output of an infinite number of possible explanations
and the need to choose among them based on their intrinsic properties rather
than on prejudices.  

I should also note that the assumption of an omnipotent being is more complex
than other alternatives because such a being's existence by definition
must be made a part of EVERY system that makes up our explanation of the
universe, not just whatever part of it we're trying to explain by introducing
this being.  It thus represents an extreme complication in the total setup,
and in almost every case is greatly to be avoided as an explanation.

I hope this explains the application of Occam's Razor reasonably clearly.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|Daniel Starr                | "Wait! Wait! Maybe THIS will work!" |
|dstarr@minerva.cis.yale.edu |                                     |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism