Friendly reminder that "Occam's Razor" is not actually an argument

friendly reminder that "Occam's Razor" is not actually an argument

Attached: 1520036512020.png (700x655, 248K)

Friendly reminder all non whites are aliens

No but it is legitimate evidence to support an argument.

What about "burden of proof is on you, not me"?

Unlikely

the burden of proof is always on the positive claim

Usually.

Prove it.

an argument's simplicity has absolutely zero bearing per se on its objectivity or truth value, so no.

Typically

Occam's razor is a concept designed to herd midwits into a narrow frame of thinking. It's functionally useless in determining the answers to the questions in reality which are harder to find.

FUCKING REMINDER THAT OCCAM'S RAZOR IS ALWAYS THE ARGUMENT AT THE STRATEGIC LEVEL

FUCKING REMINDER THAT ALL ANTI-RAZORS COME INTO EFFECT AT THE OPERATIONAL LEVEL AND LOWER

Friendly reminder that you do not know what Occam's Razor is."

You're welcome black-hat defeating squads.

Very probable

Occam’s Razor is the heuristic for stupid atheists.

I abide by Eris’ Shuriken. The most complicated and complex explanation is the most right one.

Attached: 1532985215487.jpg (598x687, 84K)

You just fallaciously assume things do not exist by default.

Let go of your assumptions and you'll see the burden of proof lies on anyone, even those making negative claims.

You must have one hell of an imagination.
But threads that long get tenuous so quickly.

>Occam’s Razor is the heuristic for stupid atheists.

true

Finally someone said it. People that use it in arguments seem to think that it just something you say to validate your own confirmation bias

if it looks like a duck, and you want it to be a duck, and your adversary says it's not a duck, it's a duck

Attached: Platipus.jpg (645x433, 61K)

its heavily correlated. Kinda like Heliocentrism has the occams razor thing going on.

You end up running into a simple memory problem, there become areas where, unless you were glass on and glass out, you're simply looking at an effect which could have been caused by multiple factors.
The Schrodinger's Cat helps here, but ultimately it still leaves you at relative/probable, not proven. A very fine line, but an important one in honesty.

then explain relativity

That’s why to truly know everything you must be The All itself, and therefore reality is inherently unknowable at our atomized and compartamentalized level of existences. But, the more complex an answer becomes, we can be rest assured that it is closer to the truth than anything simple our minds could grasp.

it's an argument for NPCs