Occam's Razor cuts both ways...

So here I am reading an occasional post saying that Occam's razor says there cannot be election fraud.

Occam's Razor predicts that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

So the simplest explanation predicts that:

Hillary pulls off the most bizarre and unexpected upset in American politics (according to many MSM commentators), with a 10% - 18% swing, depending on which polls you rely on.

The hand counted ballots and optical scanned ballots in NH are mirror images of each other.

Hillary wins precincts in NH whose demographics would predict Obama wins, and vice versa.

Elections ALWAYS break unexpectedly towards the more conservative candidate, and NEVER towards the more liberal candidate.

And on and on and on...

I'd say that's the dull side of the razor cutting there. Try the sharp side: D-I-E-B-O-L-D.

more liberal candidate.

From what source do you draw this statement?

MKJ

MKJ

an actual resource demand that the questioner do the research, because you don't bother with stuff like that.

Where have I seen this debate technique before?

Oh yeah, now I remember...the master of declarative statements with no actual basis in fact:



MKJ

I have green underwear on.

Prove me wrong.

I think this subject is important enough to be worth getting right. I appreciate the help.

:rofl: MKJ

On edit, can I just hypothesize that they're white and go for the odds? :rofl:

detail that shows what nonsense this is - it was rural vs urban split - type of vote counting did not matter.

...you should look at who did the predicting. That, after all, is what you are basing your argument on!

I would say we better find out now rather than later. We have to do every thing possible to assure honest elections and if that means paper ballots so be it.

get back to us. In the meantime, you and Chris Matthews might want to get a room.

The correct rendering of the rule devised by William of Ockham is as follows: Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily. In other words, a hypothesis should keep the number of assumed or unseen postulates to a minimum, however while still explaining all of the available facts. The less assumptions (or "entities") you include, the likelier you are to be right. But you can't ignore facts just to make a hypothesis less complex.

Once formulated, hypotheses still require testing and may still be proven false. Mere simplicity is not a proof. The hypothesis that appears superior based on Ockham's rule can still be wrong.

Often the lousier or less simple explanation for a phenomenon will be defended by those who think they can win an argument simply by invoking the magic words, "Occam's Razor." The spell is usually employed on behalf of approved or official truths, no matter how absurd. Unpopular or discomforting hypotheses are characterized as too complex, even when they are simpler.

The rule is of little or no use in understanding human affairs, where deception, mistakes, spin and fuzzy logic all play a role. For example, humans know that their fellow humans will reach for and desire simple or reassuring explanations. This allows them to fool each other.

A rock falling off a cliff cannot issue a press release claiming that its acceleration is significantly less than 9.9 m/s/s. But a naked emperor can proclaim that he has clothes on. Many people will be fearful to contradict that. Just as many may actually and sincerely believe it, and disbelieve their own eyes. What, they will ask: Are you questioning the emperor's credibility?! How dare you?

I guess I'll be waiting a while. :toast: MKJ

that is why they Fuck up everything they do,,,,