Topic: Occam's razor and other scientific/thought principles - EXPANDING INTO YOUR MIND

[beatty]

On a different forum a guy mentioned Occam's razor in CHAT a few nights back in response to me...

The principle is often summarized as "simpler explanations are, other things being equal, generally better than more complex ones." In practice, the principle is usually focused on shifting the burden of proof in discussions. That is, the razor is a principle that suggests we should tend towards simpler theories until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power. Contrary to the popular summary, the simplest available theory is sometimes a less accurate explanation. Philosophers also add that the exact meaning of simplest can be nuanced.

Bertrand Russell offered what he called "a form of Occam's Razor": "Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

I think I've used it to framework my thinking at least twice since I was introduced to it, so I (just) thought why not make a thread and ask you guys if there are any other interesting or worthwhile scientific/thought principles that I should be aware of...

(Wikipedia links are encouraged)

[OCK]

Watch 'Big Bang Theory' and you'll quickly learn some more (if only to understand the jokes).

[beatty]

I'd rather burn my eyes.

[thomas]

Related, though a little more broad than specific principles on deductive reasoning/critical thinking, is "Pragmatic Thinking & Learning" by Andy Hunt.  Particularly interesting if you want to learn some of the how's and why's behind how we think and acquire skills.  The material isn't as dry as it sounds and it's presented well, but obviously technical depth has been sacrificed for accessibility.  Still, a good start into the subject matter and lots of good references to follow it with. 

[dinotheprehistoricgeordie]

Murphy's / Sods law. Everything that can go wrong, will go wrong at the most important time.

[OpenC]

I class most psychology as either worthless or self-evident, but cognitive dissonance (very broadly, the way that people can force themselves to believe almost anything if they want if they want to) explains a lot about why some people are as they are.

[beatty]

If you have time, could you explain why you class most psychology as either worthless or self-evident?

[OpenC]

Well, I'll try.. I may have had too much wine to make a particularly good go of it, though

On the one hand (self-evident): a lot of psychology merely hangs labels on things that most people probably already recognise; Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is a good one, for example, the contents of which would surprise nobody who spent more than five minutes thinking about the issues involved.  Cognitive dissonance is the same.  More to the point, these labels don't really help anybody or do anything useful.  The only value to cognitive dissonance is that it's a name I can use on the internet in threads like this to quickly reference something I agree with; I don't believe, though, that people don't just innately realise that this is the way people work.  "Haters gonna hate" does much the same job   I realise these are very basic level examples; my apologies to any reading psychologists who know of genuine uses for giving names to human peccadilloes

On the other side (worthless) are, for example, a series of identified personality disorders (borderline, psychopath, etc etc).  I don't doubt that these things exist, but I do doubt that they exist in isolation, and I doubt that one man's psychopathy is the same as the next.  It seems to me that the most that can be said with any degree of certainty is that everybody will fall somewhere along the scale of 0 - 100% for virtually all things that psychologists claim to be able to measure.  But can you realistically measure thinking or emotion by one person's analysis of how glib somebody appears to be (for example) on questioning?  Is it right to then label somebody as psychopathic/borderline/etc etc because they reach a certain threshold in several areas?  Where does that leave individuality?

Sorry, not expressing myself particularly well   May have another go at it after work tomorrow.  I should, however, have said in my post, "most psychology that I'm aware of", which is obviously not a great deal.  However, what I do know doesn't inspire me to think much of the subject as a whole   I see it as very subjective, and (to be frank) not particularly scientific or useful.

[beatty]

Would disagree in regard to your comment of 'these labels don't really help anybody or do anything useful', especially if you consider Maslow's hierarchy. 

One simple usage of the hierarchy is to inform  trainee teachers as to how to structure a successful learning environment.  It gives them a tool which they can use to analyse student progress, giving them a framework that would allow them to diagnose why students may/may not be making progress.

You need to consider the applications of these theories?

[OpenC]

Well, that's sort of my point.  I don't think they need "theories" attached; I could point you in the direction of any number of wonderful teachers and managers who don't have a clue about Maslow but can do it anyway because they're people themselves, and they know how other people work as a result.

[OpenC]

Similarly, of course, I can point you at managers (in particular) who do know Maslow but who can't manage to save their lives, because they get too hung up wondering if people are eating or shitting successfully every night and miss the bigger picture (which is, of course, that everybody is different)

[beatty]

I really like your comments about 'worthless psychology', I think I share similar thoughts, but you should consider using a different descriptor to 'worthless'.

You will like this...  Did you know that a diagnosis of autism/autistic spectrum disorder in the UK can vary dependent upon the local authority.  It is diagnosed on a 0-100% scale and each authority will set their own thresholds.  You may be diagnosed as being at, say for simplicity, 18%, which would allow you the provision that comes with the label in county A, whereas in country b the upper boundary is placed at 20% so you wouldn't gain the label and consequently no treatment.

Hashed last sentence there, f*** it.

[beatty]

Well, that's sort of my point.  I don't think they need "theories" attached; I could point you in the direction of any number of wonderful teachers and managers who don't have a clue about Maslow but can do it anyway because they're people themselves, and they know how other people work as a result.

But the theories allow those that aren't enlightened to think in those specific ways...  That's the point of them.

[OpenC]

  I didn't know that, but I'm pleased that I do now

[OpenC]

But the theories allow those that aren't enlightened to think in those specific ways...  That's the point of them.

Aye, but I'd refer you to my second post on the subject (which really should've formed part of the first).

[beatty]

Then they haven't synthesized their new knowledge and aren't applying it correctly, consequently they need to be pointed towards bloom's taxonomy

[DJ_NUFC]

A similar conversation is (always) taking place at this place:

http://edge.org/

Highly recommended.

[OpenC]

Then they haven't synthesized their new knowledge and aren't applying it correctly, consequently they need to be pointed towards bloom's taxonomy

...which is exactly the same f***ing thing as Maslow, on a different subject

[beatty]

Then they haven't synthesized their new knowledge and aren't applying it correctly, consequently they need to be pointed towards bloom's taxonomy

...which is exactly the same f***ing thing as Maslow, on a different subject

I think it isn't the theories/frameworks that are broken/pointless, as you suggest, but the people you have observed attempting to utilize them failing slightly.  So, what you should be doing is giving those struggling managers a helping hand to use them.  That's why I suggested bloom's, because it would help them to think about how to apply new theories/concepts.  Obviously, synthesis of new information is very rarely an instantaneous process so they may need more time?   

I'd consider myself a good example in that sense.  I was introduced to many different ways of thinking a couple of years back and it took me a year or so of practice to begin applying them correctly and with regularity.

[beatty]

A similar conversation is (always) taking place at this place:

http://edge.org/

Highly recommended.

Excellent linkage - invisible karma for you

[madras]

I really like your comments about 'worthless psychology', I think I share similar thoughts, but you should consider using a different descriptor to 'worthless'.

You will like this...  Did you know that a diagnosis of autism/autistic spectrum disorder in the UK can vary dependent upon the local authority.  It is diagnosed on a 0-100% scale and each authority will set their own thresholds.  You may be diagnosed as being at, say for simplicity, 18%, which would allow you the provision that comes with the label in county A, whereas in country b the upper boundary is placed at 20% so you wouldn't gain the label and consequently no treatment.

Hashed last sentence there, f*** it.

poor example as that is for other reasons than it should be. i'll bet those areas that 'find' fewer cases find ma hell of a lot more if bequeathed millions to spend specifically on that condition.

i got told this from a friend who studied psychology and now works in advertising. "advertisng shouldn't work, we buy what we need and no ammount of telling us this is better than that, you need a new this or that will work because we know what advertising is about.........don't we ?"

[Super Duper Branko Strupar]

A similar conversation is (always) taking place at this place:

http://edge.org/

Highly recommended.

Just found this site recently. f***ing class.


In response to Open C, I can't see how any psychology can be ultimately worthless.

[beatty]

Here's one that I've use heavily and I'd expect a lot of people here will use or have at least had some experience with:

The de Bono Hats system (also known as "Six Hats" or "Thinking hats") is a thinking tool for group discussion and individual thinking. Combined with the idea of parallel thinking which is associated with it, it provides a means for groups to think together more effectively, and a means to plan thinking processes in a detailed and cohesive way.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Thinking_Hats

I know that I'm an extremely negative thinker, always looking for limitations of things and trying to find ways to reject new ideas that I come across.  I would use any limitations I can think of to reject whatever new idea I've been introduced to. The problem in what I do (teaching) is that there is never really a definitive right or wrong way to go about certain things; almost every single approach will have its benefits and drawbacks. So, I'm always fighting with myself to see how new methods can be of some benefit and learn to work with them to help improve my practice. So, I've found this extremely useful from a simple angle of making conscious decisions to 'put my yellow hat on' for a few seconds

[beatty]

poor example as that is for other reasons than it should be. i'll bet those areas that 'find' fewer cases find ma hell of a lot more if bequeathed millions to spend specifically on that condition.

I know, I didn't intend it to be an example.  Just a quirk that I thought would be interesting

The linkage was that ASD is (as in the name itself) ranked across a spectrum...

[OpenC]

In response to Open C, I can't see how any psychology can be ultimately worthless.

Fair enough; I just don't see the value in making subjective judgements and attempting to use those judgements to objectify individuals (if you see what I mean).  I'm not writing it all off; just the bits that everybody already knows, and the bits that are so fuzzy that even psychologists don't agree with themselves