From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 20:58: 9 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E04E37B409 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 20:58:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB0B543E6E for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 20:57:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g853vxGd039165; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 20:57:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g853vw0r039162; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 20:57:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 20:57:58 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Joshua Lee Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020904230808.4c76a744.yid@softhome.net> Message-ID: <20020904205445.C38687-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Joshua Lee wrote: > > It's because if you supply your own definition of "simple", Occam's > > razor can be used to prove anything. > > No, it cannot be used to prove *anything*; only that which may be > reduced to definitions and terms consistent with simplicity and > complexity, with the former affirmed and the latter rejected. That > having been said, it was a fairly strong early argument against medieval > scholasticism. (The only answer the Catholic church seemed to have for > it and other arguments against scholasticism was to declare Thomism > sacrosanct; until Vatican II partially reversed this position.) Allow me to give a demonstration of what I am talking about. A naturalist would insist that "natural" explanations are the simplist, no matter how complex the details. On the other hand, a supernaturalist would claim the exact opposite, although he cannot even begin to explain *how* God does the things that he does. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message