A conjecture in science is the same way. It can be dismissed without evidence, that doesn’t mean it is automatically false or insignificant. Notice the quote says CAN be dismissed without evidence not MUST be dismissed due to lack of evidence — khaled
In partial agreement with you but there's one area of philosophical argumentation that Hitchen's Razor is extremely useful viz. the issue with burden of proof. I'm familiar with it from the God debate (theism/atheism). — TheMadFool
With [1] the biggest problem is that most people, obviously including Hitchens, are simply not aware of the existence of different non-overlapping epistemic domains. They seem to assume that there is only one epistemic domain, namely, science — alcontali
Therefore, Hitchens' approach in which he arbitrarily rejects starting points, is just a cheap slogan that he could use and abuse to reject pretty much any knowledge claim. The late, dead Hitchens was a rhetorical attack dog, with a strong emphasis on the word "dog". May his carcass rot in hell. — alcontali
It is just that I do not like people like Hitchens, whose only goal in life is to discredit and otherwise viciously attack other people. Hitchens was a cherished accomplice of Satan. Richard Stallman said about Steve Jobs: "I am not glad that he is dead but I am glad that he is gone." About Hitchens, I rather abbreviate all of that to "dead and gone", and we wouldn't want it any other way. — alcontali
f your "poor victims" didn't preach indoctrinate proselytize mutually inconsistent superstitions day in and day out, then there wouldn't be a whole lot of Hitchens'ses around to disabuse those postulates. — jorndoe
If assertions are intended to persuade, then you'd want relevant justifications, yes?
I'll venture to guess that most occasionally go by the razors, whether intuitively, implicitly or explicitly.
There is no reason to dismiss claims that do not have evidence. — Coben
If you had a research team and one proposed an axiom: there is much intelligent life on other planets in the galaxy. — Coben
Mathematics does not make any claim as to usefulness or meaningfulness. That is so by design. — alcontali
Say religion and science are, to quote Stephen Jay Gould, "non-overlapping magisteria": if scientists make pronouncements about religious ideas, or the religious make metaphysical claims in quasi-scientific (fundamentalist) terms, then they are committing category errors, making inapt claims, no? — Janus
This is what the idiot, Hitchens, completely failed to understand. — Janus
Hitchens was just an arsehole. — alcontali
He's quite eloquent and does well in debates. I don't recall him having to run from the law except the possibility of the Ayatollah issuing a fatwa. — TheMadFool
His challenge to the religious establishment is genuine and well-reasoned. He doesn't discriminate between faiths like the faithful themselves are guilty of. — TheMadFool
The word 'context' is very general. I don't think there needs to be any evidence it is the case or observations that somehow lead one to believe the conjecture is true. I would assume that any intelligible statement/conjecture would be within some already mapped out area of knowledge. And that area of knowledge would include observations, but none of them need indicate the conjecture is true. But then, that would be evidence.A conjecture without evidence, maybe...but a conjecture without context? (A context will consist in some observations that have been used to construct it surely?). — Janus
Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them. — https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater
The word 'context' is very general. I don't think there needs to be any evidence it is the case or observations that somehow lead one to believe the conjecture is true. I would assume that any intelligible statement/conjecture would be within some already mapped out area of knowledge. And that area of knowledge would include observations, but none of them need indicate the conjecture is true. But then, that would be evidence. — Coben
Hitchens' razor is applicable in those cases where a conjecture is claimed to be true. — TheMadFool
Well, it is fundamentally anti-investigatory and hasty. Now or never, and it takes oneself out of the equation also. I encounter idea X. Person who has idea X does not present me with evidence. I dismiss. (or 'can' as people keep pointing out as if the real life use of the razor was via this modal verb). I encounter. I demand evidence or note the lack. I dismiss. I do not interact. I do not probe. I do not see where it might lead me. I do not see if I have any evidence or a frame in which it might add something. I do not black box. I do not tease out. I close a door.Hitchen's razor, however, would obviously not work. The police would get absolutely nowhere with their investigations, if they used it. — alcontali
No, I start by accepting the claim, and then I interrogate it, until I finally discover the reason why it is inconsistent. As long as this reason cannot be found, I consider the hypothesis to be legitimate. — alcontali
What I find relevant in your post is that you don't accept that a conjecture is true. You only assume it is. It's just a weaker version of Hitchens' razor isn't it? — TheMadFool
Well, it is not a version of Hitchens' razor, because unlike him, I do not reject the hypothetical statement. In order to reject it, I first need a "witness" testifying to its inconsistency. — alcontali
Well, you do suspend belief until the conjecture is proven. — TheMadFool
If you don't do that then you'd be believing anything and everything which I hope is not what you want. — TheMadFool
And here we see a process unfolding over some period of time.How long can an arbitrary stream of language expressions continue before it contradicts itself? In my experience, not very long. That is why I will not easily say, "I do not believe you". My knee-jerk reaction is rather: "Please, go on."
So, no, it is not suspension of belief. I will certainly be in doubt, but not in disbelief. Doubt is rather some kind of indecisiveness. Doubt and disbelief are quite different from each other.
People get pissed off if you disbelieve them for no good reason at all, and they are actually right, because there is not even a need for that. — alcontali
How long can an arbitrary stream of language expressions continue before it contradicts itself? In my experience, not very long. That is why I will not easily say, "I do not believe you". My knee-jerk reaction is rather: "Please, go on." — alcontali
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.