Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Religion

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)

15. Hogwash

Reply to provis99 (Reply #12)

Sat Feb 11, 2012, 09:03 AM

Feb 2012

Everything else being equal, a hypothesis requiring unproven assumptions, each of which has a probability less than 1 of being true, is going to be less likely to be true than a hypothesis requiring no such assumptions.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

17 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Atheist Q&A [View all] Silent3 Feb 2012 OP

Mostly agree. I think he short-sold humanistic morality a bit dmallind Feb 2012 #1

So you've read the book? Silent3 Feb 2012 #2

Ah - missed the distinction - thought QA was with author. Sorry. nt dmallind Feb 2012 #5

As for my own answers... Silent3 Feb 2012 #7

there is no rational basis for an idea like Occam's Razor provis99 Feb 2012 #8

So tama Feb 2012 #9

But it is very good for deterrmining likely hypotheses to investigate dmallind Feb 2012 #10

it is of zero value when determining likely hypotheses. provis99 Feb 2012 #12

In medicine, there is a similar construct. cbayer Feb 2012 #13

A) Crap b) why is either ontology or a philosopjy construct a question for scientists? dmallind Feb 2012 #14

Hogwash skepticscott Feb 2012 #15

Its NATURE! elleng Feb 2012 #3

You Are Searching For Certain Answers 1ProudAtheist Feb 2012 #4

I can't get to the review that you're referencing. Jim__ Feb 2012 #6

massimo's post notinavat Feb 2012 #16

Surprising that Rosenberg claims to be on board with all that; then claims the macro world is ... Jim__ Feb 2012 #17

Pigliucci, Rosenberg etc notinavat Feb 2012 #11