Re: The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	7-Apr-06/1:00 PM
In the philosophy of religion Occam's Razor is sometimes used to challenge arguments for the existence of God: if there is no need for a "God" (to explain the universe), then the God construct is subject to elimination via Occam's Razor. An example of such an argument would take this form: we have a set of models which does a good job of predicting various aspects of our experience (theories from physics, biology, psychology, etc.). Taken together these constitute a larger model of our overall experience, call it a World model. Elements (sub-models) of this World model which do not contribute to the precision or improve the accuracy of the model should be "cut away" with Occam's Razor. Given this foundation it can be seen that World models including God have an extra element that does not improve accuracy or precision. A common response is that God can "simplify" the world model, for instance by providing a less complex explanation of the origin of species via creationism (i.e. even though we are adding the God-submodel we are removing a more complicated "evolution" model achieving a simpler theory). Concurrently, some over-simplify Ockham's principles as meaning "the easiest explanation must be correct" and argue that given the complexity of the Universe and the extremely small chance that it would have developed this way simply by a series of accidents, there must be a driving force that built the universe to be so complex. However, such arguments are problematic on at least two counts (aside from describing natural processes as "accidents"). First, the "evolution model" is simply a way of describing the emergent properties of simpler theories of biochemistry (DNA replication and control of biological systems), probability theory (inevitable errors in complex systems such as DNA replication, the differential replication rates of traits and genes with differing effects on survival and reproduction). Evolutionary biology introduces nothing (no new entities or hypothetical constructs) that are not already present in these more basic sciences/processes. It simply produces a theoretical system that enables us to perceive the patterns that these basic processes produce. Just as the notion of an ocean wave is not a phenomenon/concept requiring any new, hypothesized elements other than the behavior of many water molecules, wave theories enable us to see patterns and make predictions about the aggregate behavior of many molecules. The God model, unlike evolution theory, introduces a truly new, unrelated element to the explanatory system. Occam's Razor can shave away the God concept without affecting any of the basic concepts of science. If we try to cut away evolution theory, we have to shave away an enormous amount of knowledge about the world, as evolution theory is just a name for the patterns basic processes produce. Second, the evolution model and the patterns it enables us to see has produced countless accurate predictions that would not be possible without the theory. Critics who claim the two models are equal do not take into account that the evolution sub-model is necessary for accuracy and precision (for instance the evolution models makes many good predictions about where we will find various kinds of fossils). Since removing the evolution sub-model reduces the accuracy and precision of the World model, unlike the God model that produces no novel predictions, it must be kept (in some form). Another proposed justification for including the God sub-model has been that it improves accuracy or precision around certain specific subsets of data, and thus is a better fit when we consider all the data. An example of this would be the claim that "religious experience," such as visions, voices, and other sorts of personal experience are not explained/predicted by the other sub-models, in this case sub-models of human psychology without the God concept. In examining this question, the principle of Occam's Razor would direct us to remove the God sub-model if it did not provide better predictions about those sorts of experiences than alternative sub-models about human psychology, and to keep it if it did. Some people thus argue that Occam's Razor puts the question of the existence of God squarely within the realm of testable science. I.e. the idea of "God" is no different from any other idea, and can be evaluated with the same criteria we use for other models. While arguments taking the above form are common, they are not accepted among most psychologists or philosophers of science. No experiment or observation has produced any data of religious experience that cannot be at least equally well explained by psychological theories without the traditional God concept. And, possibly more important, is that the psychological theories employed in the explanation of such experience—precisely like evolutionary theory, as described above—have no new elements introduced just to explain this specific data set. The psychological theories of religious experience are simply ways of organizing more basic scientific concepts and explanations of human perception and experience. They are thus based on elements necessary to produce general accurate predictions of human experience and they produce accurate predictions of religious experience that can then be tested. The God model produces no testable predictions of even religious experience that cannot be produced without it, and it can be "shaved away" without affecting basic theories needed for more general explanations. On the other hand, Kierkegaard argued that there were no testable predictions of the existence of God and further argued that the concept of faith made any testable observations self-defeating. It is difficult to explain humankind's unique understanding of good and evil and its ability to love and hate -- relative to the rest of the animal kingdom -- from a purely evolutionary standpoint. In this sense, it is not reasonable to simply combine all of the material observations of our universe and apply Occam's Razor to justify the non-existence of God. Indeed, William of Ockham himself did not make this leap, being himself very well educated in religion. The principle is only a guide to the best theory based on current knowledge, not to the "truth". It is argued that Ockham was an intellectual forefather of the scientific method because he argued for a degree of intellectual freedom in a time of dogmatic belief, similarly to Roger Bacon. He can also, however, be seen as an apologist for Divine Omnipotence, since he was concerned with demonstrating that creation is contingent and the Creator is free to change the rules at will. Thus, if God is free to make an infinity of worlds with completely different rules from those which prevail in our world, then we are free to imagine such worlds and their logical and practical consequences. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	6-Apr-06/1:29 PM
You might want to specify Ft Bragg, CA. The Ft Bragg most people know is the gigantic one in North Carolina, home of, among other things, the Delta Force and the most pawn shops per capita anywhere.
Re: a comment on Because You Love Me by amanda_dcosta	1-Apr-06/12:05 PM
The point is, that's the way people DO look at things. Where you had a chance to invent your own title/phrase/whatever and score originality points, your readers saw this and said, oh, Celine's title, well that's not very original.
Re: a comment on Because You Love Me by amanda_dcosta	31-Mar-06/12:32 PM
"I don't think I aught to change it just because Celine Dion has a song by that title." Actually, um, you ought to. Sure, it would have been a good title, and sure Celine's song is awful and totally different. But the fact is that probably half the people who read this thought, ick, that's Celine Dion's title. Do you want people to think that? No. It's not about what people have the right to think about your poem, or whether they're right thinking about it. It's that people DO and WILL associate this with Celine Dion and think it's unoriginal. You don't want that. Not when it's wasting a wonderful opportunity to make up your own phrase/title and maybe have it become as popular as Celine's.
Re: a comment on 9/11 - The Jumpers by Caducus	31-Mar-06/7:59 AM
"cirrus clouds". "747". "journey to America". Besides that, you've somehow managed to make poetic writing sound even clumsier and less-poetic than normal speech.
Re: a comment on Cat Feet by Niphredil	30-Mar-06/2:14 PM
Double yawn.
Re: a comment on Cat Feet by Niphredil	30-Mar-06/1:49 PM
It would help if you thought of something truly original to describe things happening quietly.
Re: Time Thief by Dovina	30-Mar-06/1:48 PM
The weird half-rhymes in the first stanza are good. The repetition of "time" at the ends of lines is not. Nor is the digression about Islamic cartoonists. The last stanza's tidy, didactic, silly, Benjamin Franklinesque, and unnecessary if you'd done your job in the first four stanzas.
Re: Sarah, Freefalling (twee for AlChemy) by ecargo	30-Mar-06/1:46 PM
Not bad. I would shorten or tweak the "brothers" line and end the sentence after "walls". The internal rhyme in the first stanza is especially good.
Re: 9/11 - The Jumpers by Caducus	30-Mar-06/1:44 PM
This is full of bad language, mixed metaphors, and factual errors. Also, ending a poem with a question is never a good idea.
Re: Quiet Hands by Sunny	30-Mar-06/1:42 PM
Clocks should almost never be used in poetry. Especially not as symbols of time stopping or moving on.
Re: SHOT by tisa7	30-Mar-06/1:40 PM
"me" doesn't rhyme with "already." Sorry, that probably makes you want to die even more.
Re: Because You Love Me by amanda_dcosta	30-Mar-06/1:39 PM
This is sweet. I would delete the word "me" almost every time it appears, though.
Re: Behind the storm clouds, the moon consoles the sun.(edited) by ALChemy	30-Mar-06/1:38 PM
Blake.
Re: a comment on Cat Feet by Niphredil	30-Mar-06/1:37 PM
Yes. I was about to say that. Sorry, Niphredil, that phrase is permanently spoken for.
Re: a comment on A Fish is Always a Fish by Dovina	27-Mar-06/6:58 PM
What do you disagree with? That people who didn't know should be smacked? Did YOU not know?
Re: a comment on A Fish is Always a Fish by Dovina	27-Mar-06/5:32 PM
Blast away. Anyone who doesn't know it's a well-known song should be smacked.
Re: a comment on A Fish is Always a Fish by Dovina	27-Mar-06/4:19 PM
What do you mean?
Re: A Fish is Always a Fish by Dovina	27-Mar-06/3:25 PM
A fish is an animal that lives in a brook. He can't write his name or read a book. To fool the humans is his only thought, And even though he's slippery, he still gets caught. So you better watch out for what you wish: You could grow up to be a fish.
Re: a comment on Buddy by ALChemy	26-Mar-06/11:23 PM
Good thing there aren't letters in heaven like there are numbers. Botching "dyslexic" would surely kill your chances with the Eternal Y.