Like Occam´s Razor; we now have Polly´s Quandry to consider...

Yet, Occam is a proof of the heresy of the pope of his time! Kind of opposite ends of the spectrum here.


Occam´s razor
"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" or "plurality should not be posited without necessity." The words are those of the medieval English philosopher and Franciscan monk William of Ockham (ca. 1285-1349). Like many Franciscans, William was a minimalist in this life, idealizing a life of poverty, and like St. Francis himself, battling with the Pope over the issue. William was excommunicated by Pope John XXII. He responded by writing a treatise demonstrating that Pope John was a heretic.

What is known as Occam´s razor was a common principle in medieval philosophy and was not originated by William, but because of his frequent usage of the principle, his name has become indelibly attached to it. It is unlikely that William would appreciate what some of us have done in his name. For example, atheists often apply Occam´s razor in arguing against the existence of God on the grounds that God is an unnecessary hypothesis. We can explain everything without assuming the extra metaphysical baggage of a Divine Being.

William´s use of the principle of unnecessary plurality occurs in debates over the medieval equivalent of psi. For example, in Book II of his Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Abelard, he is deep in thought about the question of "Whether a Higher Angel Knows Through Fewer Species than a Lower." Using the principle that "plurality should not be posited without necessity" he argues that the answer to the question is in the affirmative. He also cites Aristotle´s notion that "the more perfect a nature is the fewer means it requires for its operation." This principle has been used by atheists to reject the God-the-Creator hypothesis in favor of natural evolution: if a Perfect God had created the Universe, both the Universe and its components would be much simpler. William would not have approved.

He did argue, however, that natural theology is impossible. Natural theology uses reason alone to understand God, as contrasted with revealed theology which is founded upon scriptural revelations. According to Occam, the idea of God is not established by evident experience or evident reasoning. All we know about God we know from revelation. The foundation of all theology, therefore, is faith. It should be noted that while others might apply the razor to eliminate the entire spiritual world, Ockham did not apply the principle of parsimony to the articles of faith. Had he done so, he might have become a Socinian like John Toland (Christianity not Mysterious, 1696) and pared down the Trinity to a Unity and the dual nature of Christ to a single nature.

William was somewhat of a minimalist in philosophy, advocating nominalism against the more popular view of realism. That is, he argued that universals have no existence outside of the mind; universals are just names we use to refer to groups of individuals and the properties of individuals. Realists claim that not only are there individual objects and our concepts of those objects, there are also universals. Ockham thought that this was one too many pluralities. We don´t need universals to explain anything. To nominalists and realists there exist Socrates the individual and our concept of Socrates. To the realist there also exist such realities as the humanity of Socrates, the animality of Socrates, etc. That is, every quality which may be attributed to Socrates has a corresponding "reality", a "universal" or eidos, as Plato called them. William might be said to have been skeptical of this realm of plurality called the realm of universals. It is not needed for logic, epistemology or metaphysics, so why assume this unnecessary plurality? Plato and the realists could be right. Perhaps there is a realm of eidos, of universal realities which are eternal, immutable models for individual objects. But we don´t need to posit such a realm in order to explain individuals, our concepts or our knowledge. Plato´s Eidos (Forms) are excess and unnecessary metaphysical and epistemological baggage.

It might well be argued that Bishop George Berkeley applied Occam´s razor to eliminate material substance as an unnecessary plurality. According to Berkeley, we need only minds and their ideas to explain everything. Berkeley was a bit selective in his use of the razor, however. He needed to posit God as the Mind who could hear the tree fall in the forest when nobody is present. Subjective Idealists might use the razor to get rid of God. All can be explained with just minds and their ideas. Of course this leads to solipsism, the view that I and my ideas alone exist, or at least they are all I know exist. Materialists, on the other hand, might be said to use the razor to eliminate minds altogether. We don´t need to posit a plurality of minds as well as a plurality of brains.

Occam´s razor is also called the principle of parsimony. These days it is usually interpreted to mean something like "the simpler the explanation, the better" or "don´t multiply hypotheses unnecessarily." In any case, Occam´s razor is a principle which is frequently used outside of ontology, e.g., by philosophers of science in an effort to establish criteria for choosing from among theories with equal explanatory power. When giving explanatory reasons for something, don´t posit more than is necessary. Von Däniken could be right: maybe extraterrestrials did teach ancient people art and engineering, but we don´t need to posit alien visitations in order to explain the feats of ancient people. Why posit pluralities unnecessarily? Or, as most would put it today, don´t make any more assumptions than you have to. We can posit the ether to explain action at a distance, but we don´t need ether to explain it, so why assume an ethereal ether?

Oliver W. Holmes and Jerome Frank might be said to have applied Occam´s razor in arguing that there is no such thing as "the Law." There are only judicial decisions; individual judgments and the sum of them make up the law. To confuse matters, these eminent jurists called their view legal realism, instead of legal nominalism. So much for simplifying matters.

Because Occam´s razor is sometimes called the principle of simplicity some creationists have argued that Occam´s razor can be used to support creationism over evolution. After all, having God create everything is much simpler than evolution, which is a very complex mechanism. But Occam´s razor does not say that the more simple a hypothesis, the better. If it did, Occam´s would be dull razor for a dim populace indeed.

Some have even found a use for Occam´s razor to justify budget cuts, arguing that "what can be done with less is done in vain with more." This approach seems to apply Occam´s razor to the principle itself, eliminating the word "assumptions." It also confuses matters by confusing "less" with "fewer." Occam was concerned with fewer assumptions, not less money.

The original principle seems to have been invoked within the context of a belief in the notion that perfection is simplicity itself. This seems to be a metaphysical bias which we share with the medievals and the ancient Greeks. For, like them, most of our disputes are not about this principle but about what counts as necessary. To the materialist, dualists multiply pluralities unnecessarily. To the dualist, positing a mind as well as a body, is necessary. To atheists, positing God and a supernatural realm is to posit pluralities unnecessarily. To the theist, positing God is necessary. And so on. To von Daniken, perhaps, the facts make it necessary to posit extraterrestrials. To others, these aliens are unnecessary pluralities. In the end, maybe Occam´s razor says little more than that for atheists God is unnecessary but for theists that is not true. If so, the principle is not very useful. On the other hand, if Occam´s razor means that when confronted with two explanations, an implausible one and a probable one, a rational person should select the probable one, then the principle seems unnecessary because so obvious. But if the principle is truly a minimalist principle, then it seems to imply the more reductionism the better. If so, then the principle of parsimony might better have been called Occam´s Chainsaw, for its main use seems to be for clear-cutting ontology.

See related entries on ad hoc hypotheses, control study, cold reading, communal reinforcement, confirmation bias, the placebo effect, the post hoc fallacy, selective thinking, self-deception, subjective validation, testimonials, James Van Praagh, and wishful thinking.


-------------------------------------------------------------​-------------------

further reading

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy "William of Ockham"
Hyman, Arthur and James J. Walsh, Philosophy in the Middle Ages 2nd ed. (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co., 1973).

W.M. Thorburn, "The Myth of Occam´s Razor," Mind 27:345-353 (1918).

©copyright 2002
Robert Todd Carroll
numerology

Here, Lester -- why don´t you take a nice long drink from my cup of "Shut The Hell Up" brand coffee?

LESTER SHUT UP NOW

Like many Franciscans, William was a minimalist in this life, idealizing a life of poverty, and like St. Francis himself, battling with the Pope over the issue. William was excommunicated by Pope John XXII.

He responded by writing a treatise demonstrating that Pope John was a heretic.

=============================================

Those damn popes; they just won´t abide anyone worshiping God more than them.

that is the heart of the issue; Worship the roman papacy, or YahWeh.

Lester sez:

"...worship the roman papacy, or YahWeh."

Hey, Lester, Lord Maitreya welcomes all to worship Him too! And this week only, you get two free Dispensations From Minor Sins with each heartfelt genuflection!

It´s a deal you CANNOT REFUSE!

But as the money rolled in the accusations followed and pretty soon Jim was fielding questions about sexual abuse that had a lot more to do with giving than receiving.
Then with even harder evidence that a great deal of the church´s money had found its way into Jim´s pocket the General Council threw him out of their own Assembly and into the waiting hands of the Criminal Justice System of the USA.
The court decided that Jim Bakker would try the state penitentiary system as his next ministerial opportunity. For the next 45 years.

As one Jim slipped into the snake pit of disgrace another Jim was climbing the ladder of opportunity. Jimmy Swaggart was a preacher in the old fashioned style and this Jimmy just knew he was going to make it big in the world of broadcasting.
In his ordinary tele-evangelist broadcasts he simply yelled, preached, sang and danced out the message of the Assemblies but when he found out about Jim B, Jimmy S got serious.
Swaggart castigated Jim B unmercifully. He reproached, accused, denounced, judged and finally he damned.
And then he got caught with a prostitute.

The General Council wearily reconvened and told hypocritical Jimmy S that his services would not be required for at least a year, asked him to quietly leave, and optimistically believed that the scandal would quietly fade away.
But unrepentant Jimmy wanted to go back to work and with a stroke of old brilliance strode out in front of the cameras (and most of America) said he was sorry, cried and begged for forgiveness. The council, of course, terminated his contract.
Permanently.

[link to www.godulike.co.uk]

Pg 503 catechism of the catholic church"Jesus says" I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me,and I in him,he it is that bears much fruit,for apart from me you can do nothing" Thr fruit referred to in this saying is the holiness of life made fruitful by union with Christ. Whwn we believe in Jesus Christ,partake in his mysteries, and keep his commanments, the Savior himself comes to love, in us, his Father and his brethren,our Father and our brethren. His person becomes, through the Sprit,the livong and interior rule of our activity. "This is my commandment,that youlove one another as I have loved you"

hmmmm. interesting reading, sort of.

isn´t that what everyone should be doing?

living simply so that others may simply live?

razors can be sharp.

Polly´s Quandry is a "sophie´s choice":

Do I parrot the roman catholic partyline, or, do I Love Jesus and give my life to God.

Excommunicated if you do give your life to God;

Unfulfilled in your life´s purpose if you stay apart from THE WAY, Christ Jesus.


Sadly, most catholics just refuse to consider that God wants to Know them personally.

*****************************************


Do you view your poo before it goes down?






















*****************************************

it a sin to look at your poo

Polly says today, 4-14-05 "I just can´t help myself"


How can Priests be Of-God, Abiding with-HIM, a repository for The Holy Spirit, and be Alcoholics and Pedophiles?

Unless God is a liar; they cannot!
===================================================

Here´s mud in your eye, Polly! from todays news:


Re: 15,800 "hits" on Google for "pedophile priest"

This Horror story just keeps going on.
The catholics think money will solve these peoples problems and they begrudge paying them for the ruin their Criminal Employees brought.

It is one thing to make a car or tire that has a defect; it is another completely to set upon children and young men like an animal.

How many have had their faith and lives ruined?
I Know these bastards begrudge even a dollar.




story here:


Jury awards $2 million in priest abuse
East Bay verdict for ex-altar boys closely watched as benchmark for SR, other molest cases
STAFF AND WIRE REPORTS
In a case closely watched by Catholics in the Santa Rosa Diocese and throughout the state, an East Bay jury Wednesday awarded two victims of child sex abuse nearly $2 million, an amount far short of the $27 million they sought.

Guilt by the offending priest in the Oakland Diocese was never an issue in the case, making the penalty the key for jurors who have now provided a benchmark for attorneys for the church and those representing victims in more than 160 other Northern California cases.

Dan Galvin, attorney for Santa Rosa Bishop Daniel Walsh, said the $1.93 million award in the case of brothers Robert and Tom Thatcher "confirms that offers by our diocese were fair compensation to the victims."

Galvin, who was not a part of the Thatcher case, said he was bound by the terms of the confidential negotiations with plaintiffs´ lawyers not to disclose the amounts under discussion in the Santa Rosa Diocese´s 10 pending cases.

A large verdict in the Thatcher case might have pressured other dioceses to quickly settle out of court, attorneys said. But the Thatchers got far less than what their attorney, Rick Simons, had requested in closing arguments Tuesday.

Bob Thatcher, 34, was awarded $875,000 in compensatory damages and $875,000 in punitive damages by the Alameda County jury in Hayward. His brother, Tom, 33, was awarded $180,000 in compensatory damages. No punitive damages were sought in his case.

Galvin said he hoped Santa Rosa plaintiffs, in light of the Thatcher verdict, would "re-evaluate their extremely high demands."

Larry Drivon, the attorney for nine of the 10 Santa Rosa plaintiffs, couldn´t be reached for comment.

The Santa Rosa Diocese agreed to a $3 million settlement last year with one plaintiff, Roberta Saum, who alleged that she was molested by former priest Don Kimball from 1976 to 1982.

But the deal fell apart when the diocese was unable to fund the settlement, Galvin said. Saum´s case is set for trial May 16, and two more Santa Rosa cases are set for Sept. 12.

Galvin said Wednesday he hoped to resume mediation with the plaintiffs´ attorneys in all 10 cases "as soon as possible."

The Thatcher brothers´ case was the second of the 160 cases to go to a jury. In the first case, a San Francisco jury last month awarded $437,000 to Joseph Kavanaugh, 37, who said he was fondled by a San Jose priest in the 1970s.

A second case involving the same priest who abused Kavanaugh, the late Rev. Joseph Pritchard, is under way in San Francisco and could go to the jury today.

Galvin said the vast difference between the two Thatcher brothers´ awards shows that the facts of each case can make a difference to a jury.

"It´s hard to equate one verdict with another case that has a different set of facts," he said.

Simons, the Thatchers´ attorney, said he was pleased the jury ruled the Oakland Diocese acted with malice and awarded punitive damages, which are tacked on to a verdict to punish the guilty party.

"We exposed a lot of wrongdoing," Tom Thatcher said outside of court. "The church was called despicable on the record. They say they have changed their ways and I hope they have."

The plaintiffs argued that the church knew that a former Antioch priest, the Rev. Robert Ponciroli, was sexually abusing children but failed to stop him. Ponciroli, 68, has been removed from public ministry and now lives in Florida.

The Thatchers said they were molested when they were altar boys at age 9 or 10 at St. Ignatius Catholic Church in Antioch by Ponciroli, who lured each upstairs to his bedroom after asking them to come to the rectory to pick weeds.

"It wasn´t about the money," Bob Thatcher said. "What the jury said today is the abuse that occurred to me and my brother shouldn´t have happened. It could have been prevented."

Church lawyers did not dispute that the abuse occurred, but they disagreed the diocese was responsible for anxiety, relationship and drug and alcohol problems the Thatchers later suffered.

Allen Ruby, the Oakland Diocese lawyer, suggested Tuesday that damages of $250,000 to $400,000 for each man would be appropriate.

The jury decided the diocese should pay for 60 percent of the compensatory damages and Ponciroli 40 percent. The Thatchers do not expect to receive any money from Ponciroli because he has no assets.

The diocese is responsible for the entire punitive damage award and insurance is not allowed to cover such awards. There was no immediate word on whether an appeal was planned.

In addition to the 160 Northern California cases, about 550 sex abuse claims are pending against the Los Angeles Archdiocese and none of those cases has gone to trial.

Anybody who is concerned about which man these men will select is DEEPLY IN A QUANDRY for sure.