On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 02:57:26 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 11:36:43 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>>>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:18:03 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>"Derek" > wrote
>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 06:27:49 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Occam's Razor says that killing other animals to obtain food, as other
>>>>>>>animals do, is not a moral dilemma at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, you've completely misunderstood the principle. It states that
>>>>>> one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed.
>>>>>
>>>>>And the minimum assumptions needed about the moral implications of
>>>>>killing
>>>>>animals to obtain food is none.
>>>>
>>>> It requires at least two;
>>>
>>>It requires NO assumptions
>>
>> Wrong
>
>No, right, it requires no assumptions

Then you cannot use the principle of Occam's razor because
it deals with assumptions.

>> If it requires zero assumptions, as you claim, then you've plainly
>> misused Occam's razor because it wouldn't be needed. You've
>> misused the principle because you clearly don't understand it.
>
>ZERO is the least number of assumptions required.

Occam's razor requires at least two, so you cannot use it
as a principle when zero assumptions are being made.

>>>> 'it is' and 'it is not', so you're plainly
>>>> wrong to assert it requires none at all, and you're plainly
>>>> wrong to assert that, "Occam's Razor says that killing other
>>>> animals to obtain food, as other animals do, is not a moral
>>>> dilemma at all." Occam's razor says nothing of the kind.
>>>
>>>It says that the most obvious answer is usually the correct one
>>
>> NO, it doesn't.
>
>"This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all
>scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a
>set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one."

So how does this principle work where zero assumptions are
allegedly being made, you imbecile? As we can see from
your source it's a principle which is used "to choose from a
set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon"
Choosing from a set involves more than choosing from zero.
Using it to choose from a zero set of assumptions is absurd,
and those who claim to use for such a purpose demonstrates
they don't understand the principle to begin with.

>> [In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should make
>> no more assumptions than needed. Put into everyday language, it
>> says
>>
>> Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate [Latin]
>>
>> or
>>
>> Given **two** equally predictive theories, choose the simpler.]
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
>
>The simpler in this case being that the same fundamental model applies to
>humans when competing for food as applies to every other species.

Compared to what? To use Occam's razor you need at least
one more assumption, and you're claiming to have used the
principle where zero assumptions are only required.

>> As we can see, your statement;
>>
>> "Occam's Razor says that killing other animals to obtain food, as
>> other animals do, is not a moral dilemma at all."
>>
>> is false. Occam's razor deals with assumption[s], not zero
>> assumptions, you idiot.
>
>Zero is a number, dingbat.

You need at least two if you're going to use Occam's razor, so
when you claim;

"Occam's Razor says that killing other animals to obtain food, as
other animals do, is not a moral dilemma at all."

based on zero assumptions, it's plain to see that that's false, and
that you don't understand Occam's razor.