Re: naked bipeds
Paul Crowley (Paul@crowleyp.demon.co.uk)
Fri, 27 Oct 95 02:11:46 GMT
In article <46mfai$m4k@kira.cc.uakron.edu>
r3dlb1@dax.cc.uakron.edu "David L Burkhead " writes:
> In article <814414497snz@crowleyp.demon.co.uk> Paul@crowleyp.demon.co.uk writes:>
> >I quote two phenomena (y) and (z) that need explaining. I give
> >one explanation. You give two. So I've got parsimony. Big deal.
> Now, here's why you _don't_ have parsimony on your side. You're
> "one explanation" involves a whole _bunch_ of assumptions (entities
> multiplied needlessly), not just one. You've got to assume that
> protohominids moved into an aquatic environment, that they made
> adaptations because of this that _no_ other aquatic animal has made
<snips>
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this. In my
opinion you are confusing straightforward points of logic with
the full range of evidential matters. If I say X has a parsimonious
argument, I'm not saying he has a good one or that he is not making
all kinds of assumptions. The creationists have the most
parsimonious argument of all. One simple statement "God made it
all". I don't agree with it and dispute nearly all the assumptions
they make. But you can hardly get more parsimonious.
If you make "parsimonious argument" equivalent to "good argument"
then you are losing a valuable tool of analysis. This is what
I think you are doing. Correct me if I'm wrong. Give me what
you think is a bad, but parsimonious, argument.
Paul.
|