Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com Subject: OCCAM'S RAZO Message-ID: <9510231821.0PSN503@support.com> References: <46fi3g$rcq@newsbf02.news.aol.com> Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150 X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Distribution: world Date: Mon, 23 Oct 95 18:21:43 -0700 Lines: 180 One Reader responds: >Hi, Dennis. Hello. >You mentioned you wanted to know what Occam's Razor was: > >Occam's Razor > >The following is quoted from The Academic American Encyclopedia, on-line >edition, Grolier Electronic Publishing, Danbury, CT., 1991, courtesy of >Compuserve. > > Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to William of >Occam, although it was used by some scholastic philosophers prior to him. >The principle states that a person should not increase, beyond what is >necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything, or that >the person should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This >principle is often called the principle of parsimony. Since the Middle >Ages it has played an important role in eliminating fictitious or >unnecessary elements from explanations. In the development of logic, >logicians such as Bertrand Russel removed traditional metaphysical >concepts by applying Occam's razor. > >Ockham's razor, from the Encyclopedia Brittanica. > > Also spelled OCCAM'S RAZOR, [Index] also called LAW OF ECONOMY, >or LAW OF PARSIMONY, principle stated by William of [Index] Ockham >(1285-1347/49), a scholastic, that non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter >necessitatem; i.e., entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity. > > The principle was, in fact, invoked before Ockham by [Index] >Durand de Saint-Pourain, a French Dominican theologian and philosopher of >dubious orthodoxy, >who used it to explain that abstraction is the apprehension of some real >entity, such as an Aristotelian cognitive species, an active intellect, >or a disposition, all of which he spurned as unnecessary. Likewise, in >science, Nicole d'Oresme, a 14th-century French physicist, invoked the >law of economy, as did Galileo later, in defending the simplest >hypothesis of the heavens. Other later scientists stated similar >simplifying laws and principles. > Ockham, however, mentioned the principle so frequently and >employed it so sharply that it was called "Ockham's razor." He used it, >for instance, to dispense with relations, which he held to be nothing >distinct from their foundation in things; with efficient causality, which >he tended to view >merely as regular succession; with motion, which is merely the >reappearance of a thing in a different place; with psychological powers >distinct for each mode of sense; and with the presence of ideas in the >mind of the Creator, which are merely the creatures themselves. > >-------- > > I'd appreciate if you'd supply me with the entire original >message from the person you quoted. I quoted it below. >This is what I have from him: > >saxe@cs.unc.edu (Eddie Saxe) > >I am asserting that you are rapidly slitting your wrists on >Occam's Razor. > > He seems to be implying that a.r.s. or perhaps the particular >person to whom the message was directed is strangling itself in tangles >of complexity... explanations only lead to more questions in an >ever-continuing cycle. In other words - ars critics of the Church of >$cn perhaps are bludgeoning the effectiveness of their message by too much > complexity... maybe what we need is more simple summary - stuff that won't > scare away the newbies. >Heh... even if this was not the poster's intention, this would seem to be > a relevant critique of ARS. > > I don't know who this was directed to (I can't find the original >article). If you could point me towards it I'd be appreciative. > > Anyway, hope this helps - maybe you can interpret this guy's >message in this context. Feel free to post this (anonymized tho) to >a.r.s. if you think it's relevant. >-=-=- +--------------------------------+ From: saxe@cs.unc.edu (Eddie Saxe) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.society.mental-health Subject: Re: CLARIFICATION: CoS, EFF and CLI Date: 20 Oct 1995 23:09:14 -0400 Organization: Disinformation Superhighway, Speed Enforcement Division In article <461jfn$ml9@fountain.mindlink.net>, Brian Thurston wrote: >Hi Eddie: > >saxe@cs.unc.edu (Eddie Saxe) wrote: > >>In article <45em20$79p@fountain.mindlink.net>, >>Brian Thurston wrote: >>>referen@ibm.net (Diane Richardson) wrote: >>>>Steve, "Judy Short" is none other than Roger Urban. Roger knows >>>>my profession. He's also fully informed about my previous posts. >>> >>>How do you know this, Diane? Where is your evidence? [Evidence deleted] >>See the "pr" in u238's internet name? That stands for "personal". 1 person >>per IP number. So, either Roger has been breaking his terms of service with >>MCS, or Roger *is* Judy. > >>This information has been posted to these groups for over a week now. Either >>you are being intentionally disingenuous or you are a dolt. > >Mercy. Do you mean to suggest that somebody may be using Roger Urban's >account. Negative. I am asserting that you are rapidly slitting your wrists on Occam's Razor. >That's funny, that is just what I suggested. > >Perhaps you should _read_ what I posted again. Perhaps _you_ should read what _I_ posted. Since it seems to have been a little too complex for you to handle, I'll try to reiterate the data once more. Would using simpler words help? Okay, hold onto those cans tight! No M/Us this time! Either: Roger Urban, in violation of his Internet provider's terms of service, got four different people to post messages using his personal account. They all just happen to post on the same groups that he posts to, about the same topics that he posts about, using the same tone as he does, and, in general, using an extraordinarily similar grammatical structure as posts that have come from him. or: Roger Urban spent an extra two seconds per post to diddle with the personal name field in the messages he's been posting. >If I recall what most of these contracts read like it generally >specifies that the account owner is "soley" responsible for the use of >his account. I don't recall reading anything about exclusive use. When did you last have an account at MCS? >Just one guy's opinion. Whatever. Give the folks at the Vancouver org all my love! Eddie -- Ready! Fire! Aim! +--------------------------------+ By the way, I think that with the scienos, one could go far afield by attempting to simplify their deviousness and attempting to cut through the confusion they create with such a blunt tool. Unless you understand the the scieno tactic of creating complexity and confusion to obfuscate their real motives and aims you could discount their use of the principle: the more unbelievable, the better. The (retired for 20 year) scieno, Brian Thurston, is a good example of how it's done. +--------------------------------------+ Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * * dennis.l.erlich@support.com + inForm@primenet.com "tar baby" ps. Thanks to all of you who responded with definations.