surroundx wrote:

bmiller wrote:

I don't think parsimony alone should determine the plausibility of an argument.
There are other factors to consider such as the argument's explanatory power.

But of course a person will believe what he wants to believe.

Isn't explanatory power just the PoP in disguise? Explaining two facts with one entity is better than explaining two facts with two entities. Since it results in a smaller ontological expansion.

I don't believe what I want to believe. I simply strive not to have a bloated ontology.

No I don't think parsimony is about explanatory power.  It just means that arguments should dispense with things that are meaningless additions to the argument.   As Greg mentioned the fact that an argument has more or fewer steps by itself does not mean it is true.

What I meant by belief is that we have an intellect and and a will.  The intellect functions to determine what is rational, but the will determines what we believe to be true.  Basically we can fall to confirmation bias.

Last edited by bmiller (1/15/2018 7:26 pm)