Parsimony Puns

I tried looking it up, but I'm new to this terminology, and require a somewhat dumbed down explanation 😅

The law of Parsimony is well known. But should it apply when we have well, no evidence either way? I personally don't believe it should apply. People would use something like the watch on the beach argument in this case to defend using Parsimony where there's no evidence, but that's invalid. You have evidence there. You have the watch, and the prior knowledge that watches are more likely to be made by a person than by a tornado. But when you have literally ZERO reason to chose either explanation for a situation over another, why is a simpler explanation better? Can you really give a reason other than "we like simple explanations more?"

Live Comedy Bang! Bang! performance from New York City, featuring Scott Aukerman, Paul F. Tompkins as Reverend Robert Parsimony, Lauren Lapkus as Natalie Scoppapoppalee and special guest Rogue Wave.

Original air date: May 13, 2016

Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/s?eid=63862169

2016 Reddit Thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/Earwolf/comments/4jd5lt/may_13_nyc_gramercy_theatre_7_pm_episode_11_of/

Photos:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BFXEVKjPX3D

https://www.instagram.com/p/BFXWU8VPH9y

https://www.instagram.com/p/BFXg3GwkJtC

https://www.instagram.com/p/BFXjJf3PH3s

https://www.instagram.com/p/BFXk7RBQBv6

https://www.instagram.com/p/BFXnOCKIFFZ

https://www.instagram.com/p/BFX386AA2fo

https://www.instagram.com/p/BFYMGevp8ii

I'm new to the subject of IR and not quite understanding parsimony...I've been looking all over and seeing it mentioned in articles here and there, but not quite a thorough explanation. The definitions for parsimony also don't seem to relate to IR. Can anyone explain?

Quine's theory of ontological commitment states that we should determine what exists by referring to the best scientific theories. Quine also states that we should prefer theories that require commitment to the least amount of things (quantitative parsimony) and the least different type of things (qualitative parsimony). However, if a theory said for example 'the sky is blue.' We are clearly commited to blue-ness and the sky, but would we not also be commited to everything that makes up the definition of blue-ness and sky? For example, light, eyes, the retina ,photons, etc.. And then we would be committed to everything that makes up each of those concepts that follow from blue-ness and the sky.

What would prevent this from happening and causing everything to be very, very unparsimonious?

Thanks in advance for your help!

[ pahr-suh-moh-nee ]

noun

1. extreme or excessive economy or frugality; stinginess

ORIGIN OF PARSIMONY 1400–50; late Middle English parcimony<Latin parsimōnia, parcimōnia frugality, thrift, equivalent to parsi- (combining form of parsus, past participle of parcere to economize) or parci- (combining form of parcus sparing) + -mōnia-mony

The tree I made is showing incorrect and very variable topologies with low bootstrap value with one protein sequence. But when I made the tree of the same taxa with another protein sequence, it shows high bootstrap values and more consistent topologies.

So, how does the sequence influence the tree structure? Does any limitation of maximum parsimony method explain these results?

Dwy snother. Fits ointmntess. Crung a nosbatch hout the treeline beyond the cove. Snor fwot? Fuhts melsedare hat rule get? Funfin. Funfin at all.

Tank a dunk hon flyfe, snob a timtammer on fadalls. Fame ping. Dwy snother?

Dramdingalingadong flimfam a dam. Fatter foff fyme. Fuel fufentually frump out, fling furdelf doubt feyond fadall. Snor fwot?

Flay hit vaggin Fam, flurry of carousels. France fwiff fares, fow fats fot funfin. Feeze fummins, fwoooooooo.

Figadesh. Sats a fig bye. Figadesh feems fite see foze sut fees sooin. Foggado chek fem soubt? Fo fee fut fees fup foo. Fumpin fobbidly.

Some of this doesn’t hold up in court. Quite frankly, I don’t care. I researched this case to form my own opinion - which has the advantage of meaning absolutely diddley squat except for conversation here.

Here is why he is guilty.

1. The 911 call was the biggest pile of trying-not-to-seem-guilty-as-fuck bullshit I’ve ever heard.

2. The blood was very dry, but he reported her breathing minutes earlier. I don’t need any scientists citing long shots here, kids. Sorry, that’s some bullshit.

3. People don’t simply explode on staircases. This guy has been the only common denominator in TWO. Why are staircases so treacherous around this guy? Because they’re not. He attacks people on them.

4. All of the evidence that has KP standing then falling again also supports MP attacking her.

5. He stepped in blood then on the back of her leg. She was found in a seated position. Spare me your one in a billion imaginary scenarios, please. They are inadmissible in Occam’s Court of Parsimony.

6. His bisexuality is relevant to the extent that it further shows that he is a compulsive liar. Spare us your soulmate sob story.

7. How the fuck did he not clean the blood up for 18 months? He’s sick, maybe? Its morbid.

8. Lacerations to the head without bruising. Ok. This isn’t likely in a blunt force murder. Well, ok but that depends on the object used. BUT HOW DOES THIS MAKE IT MORE LIKELY that this was a deathfall on stairs? It doesn’t. It makes it likely that something like a hollow, rigid object was used.

MP killed her. Argue admissibility all you want, but that’s different. If the trial was tainted by a rogue agent, then that’s the states fault and the courts can remedy that with jurisprudence. That’s not what I’m posting about. I’m posting about the fact that any theory that doesn’t involve MP killing KP flies in the face of parsimony and common sense.

I'm attempting to formalize the lack of parsimony in creationist models and reverse for evolution and related models, since I think that would make it harder to object scientific consensus to without rather blatant errors in reasoning. Just wanted to get thoughts on how a creationist might respond to those arguments and any criticisms or suggestions DE frequenters would have.

Arguments:

We have very strong evidence for common descent in recent animals (microevolution acc. to many creationists). A portion of this evidence is weaker, but contributes to and is present among the whole of the evidence. This weaker evidence is present for extinct animals which may have much further removed proposed evolutionary relationships (macroevolution acc. to those same creationists). Our observations supported by strong evidence justify that this weaker evidence indicates evolution, while we have no evidence that it indicates anything creationist models propose. This counts in favor of evolution as the better explanation for all the weaker evidence we see.

A wide variety of geological and physical processes we observe today are gradual processes that would take many thousands to millions of years to result in earth as we see today. If a young earth or a flood model were to account for these features, it would require a large number of significant coincidences to account for all of these processes at once. Our models which require fewer coincidences, all else equal, are better than models that require more. This counts in favor of old earth and non-flood models of geology as better than young earth and flood models of geology.

Barimonology can only be a successful model of phylogeny for creationists if humans and primates are separate barims. Any methodology used to identify barims will: include expected and strongly evidenced clades, but include humans as primates; or separate humans and primates, but also separate expected and strongly evidenced clades as separate barims. There are no other successful models of phylogeny for creationists. For universal common descent, however, there are successful models of phylogeny. The best explanations for our observations, all else equal, will be successful models. This counts in favor of universal common descent as a better model of phylogeny than any creationist account.

How might you expect a creationist respond to these?

Any questions about the arguments?

Any criticisms of the arguments?

Any suggestions for the ar

I saw seagulls at the river.

They stared at me with their beady eyes and then flew up into the tear-drop sky.

Everyday folds gracefully into the next. Woken by the conversation of cyclists as they enjoy the brisk air against their faces and the scenery gliding by like a skater making her next leap of faith on the frozen ice.

We worker ants all brazen with the mission of the day. We peak our heads out of the covers and wish it were still the night.

With heavy load on our backs we embrace the bustle and busy and keep going this fine economy. Then in our spare time we squeeze in our healthful ambitions and make every moment count.

The cyclists have past, they have gone back home to ready themselves for the office.

Here we sit, still, as the time passes, watching the ants.

Check out more poetry at prose here:

Life in Lyrics – This site is about the exploration of poetic prose in our everyday life. (wordpress.com)

https://www.mjfacts.com/occams-razor/

Very intresting read

"There are many explanations and theories for Jackson’s behavior with children. It may seem incredible that everybody has the same information about Jackson yet they come to such different conclusions, however it is not as incredible as it seems. It all has to do with the interpretation of the information and the intellectual rigor used to come to a conclusion.

One of the most effective ways of coming to an intelligent conclusion on any sort of speculative subject is to use the rule of scientific parsimony. You may have heard this referred to as "Occam’s Razor".

The method is this – when weighing up two theories we should use the conclusion which results in the least amount of assumptions, or, the principle that in explaining a thing no more assumptions should be made than are necessary.

When it comes to Jackson, once you understand how acquaintance molester pedophiles behave, how their victims behave, and how the victims parents behave, there is one and only one assumption to be made – that Jackson was an acquaintance molester pedophile.

There is no need for further assumptions or explanations; all of Jackson’s behavior – from..

• His need to share his bed with young boys.

• His pursuit of young boys.

• Books of nude boys.

• His nude and partially nude photographs of his young friends.

• His payments to both parents who complained about his behavior with their sons and the parents who were compliant.

• His lack of believable adult female relationships.

• His comments about children.

• His use of thugs such as Anthony Pellicano to attempt to silence boys, their parents and critics.

• His secrecy and manipulation –

becomes obvious and crystal clear if we apply the rule.

There is no need to come up with incredible stories which involve elaborate conspiracies involving hundreds of people, extortionists, liars (apart from Jackson and those around him), Jackson’s so called secret girlfriends, lost childhoods, regression or Jackson’s supposed purity.

To attempt to explain away Jackson’s behavior using any other means requires an avalanche of contradictory theories, often ones that are totally ridiculous.

The explanation that Jackson had the mind of a 10 year old is often put forth as an explanation for his rapport with children. Yet, the same people putting forth this notion also praise his business acumen and laud his business achievements.

**Naturally, some Jackson fans can’t c

Many arguments against things like abstract entities hinge on a commitment to the idea that, all other things equal, one ought to prefer a worldview that entails fewer ontological commitments

I, personally, think that ontological parsimony seems like a correct commitment/principle, but if asked to justify my belief I’m not sure I could explain it beyond “it feels right”

What are some canonical arguments/texts that explicitly spell out why one ought to be committed to ontological parsimony as a guiding principle?