Getting a shave with Occam's Razor
Chris Cogan (ccogan@sfo.com)
Sun, 20 Jun 1999 23:47:17 -0700>>>If "design" can't be tested, neither
>>>can the concept that the universe is an accident.
>>CC
>>Since an "accidental" universe is an absolute minimalist theory, the >ID
>>design theorist has the main burden of proof. UNTIL such proof, >the
>>rational presumption is with accidentalness. Since design >theory, like
>>non-design theory, accepts the physical universe as >existing and
>>functioning according to laws of physics, the core >difference between
them
>>is that design theory posits something that >goes (vastly) beyond ordinary
>>naturalistic theory. THAT portion of >such theory is where the burden of
>>proof arises. Occam's Razor >sometimes cuts deeply. That can't be helped
in
>>this case except by >getting real, design-unique evidence.
>
>What if I think the absolute minimalist and most basic stance is ID rather
>than accidental? Prove what you say is minimalist before throwing around
>burdens of proof anywhere but towards yourself. As I have mentioned before,
>what is the simplest explanation has to be first agreed on before applying
>Occam's Razor.
CC
I've already done so in another post. But, to recapitulate: Bot the design
theorist and the naturalist agree that the universe exists. But, the
naturalist sticks with that, while the design theorist goes on to postulate
a designer, above and beyond merely the physical universe.
Hence the burden of proof. Without carrying that burden, you are
"multiplying entities needlessly" (i.e., you are adding a designer without
evidential/cognitive need for it).