Does Occam's Razor refute Plate Tectonics?

[Blue Mountain]

Perhaps I should have posted this in Humor. Please understand that I'm presenting a light-hearted argument here; it's not meant to be taken seriously.

Occam's Razor is generally understood as follows: "When multiple competing theories have equal predictive powers, the principle recommends selecting those that introduce the fewest assumptions...." (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor) - note my use of ellipses to drop out an uncomfortably pertinent section of the Wikipedia quote.)

With this is mind, I'd like to apply the Razor to two competing hypotheses of how earthquakes are caused:
1. God shaking the Earth
2. An abrupt release of tension caused by the movement of one plate sliding against or into another

Hypothesis number 1 relies on the following assumptions:
1. God exists
2. God is great enough to both create the Earth and shake it about a bit
3. On occasion he has reason to do so (the most common being he's upset at our actions)

Hypothesis number 2 relies on the following assumptions:
1. The earth is not a single cohesive mass but a series of smaller ones
2. These smaller pieces, called 'plates', containing huge things like mountains and cities, actually float on a 'mantle' of very hot liquid rock
3. Not only do they float, but like a ship floating in harbour, they occasionally bump up against one another
4. Sometimes one plate will actually slide under or over another plate
5. Since there's a lot of friction involved in multi-quadrillion ton plates sliding over one another, they remain stationary for long periods of time while the tensions build up
6. Eventually something has to give, and an earthquake is the result

So the first hypothesis requires only three assumptions, while the second requires five or six (it can be argued that points 3 and 4 are actually one). Does this mean I should give preference to the hypothesis that earthquakes are caused by an angry God shaking the Earth?

Next week I'll post an insightful analysis of why ID should be taught in the schools.

:D

[NobbyNobbs]

I know this was presented light-heartedly, but someone is bound to read it and use it as proof of God's existence. So here goes my take on it.

As far as I can tell, Occam's Razor doesn't call for the fewest assumptions, but rather the simplest circumstances. To assume there is a God is a very complicated assumption, with lots of unanswered questions. To assume there are plates beneath the earth is a simpler one for which there is actually evidence and less unanswered questions.

Did I get it right?

[Soapy Sam]

Blue Mountain. I think you are spot on here.
"Goddidit" is an incredibly simple hypothetical explanatory mechanism for anything, not just plate tectonics. It's extensible to cover the whole universe, which is also its main failing. Any theory that covers everything without actually clarifying the method at a lower level , is in effect, useless.

Plate tectonics explains a huge array of observed evidence which , previously, made little sense at all. It gives an explanatory mechanism for the cause, frequency and intensity of earthquakes and even some hope of a predictive model. God shaking the world does not.
PT explains how a tsunami can occur in one place, whereas the shaking model would cause ALL oceans to slosh , lids to fly off biscuit tins and satellites to crash. (All of which can be corrected for in the god model of course. That's the beauty and vacuity of it. It can correct for anything while explaining nothing).
I realise you are kidding here. The problem is that many folk out there, as Nobby says, are not. The Goddidit model is only simple because it actually explains nothing. Only simpletons accept explanations of this type. One wonders where all the simpletons come from. Perhaps God makes them?

[Blue Mountain]

As far as I can tell, Occam's Razor doesn't call for the fewest assumptions, but rather the simplest circumstances.
Indeed, the part of the Wikipedia article I didn't quote read (part in bold): "... the principle recommends selecting those that introduce the fewest assumptions and postulate the fewest hypothetical entities."

To assume there is a God is a very complicated assumption, with lots of unanswered questions. To assume there are plates beneath the earth is a simpler one for which there is actually evidence and less unanswered questions.
I believe that assuming God exists is very easy; proving it is quite another matter. As Soapy Sam noted above, what science is doing is providing many good and consistent explanations for activity that previously required invoking a powerful, capricious, and often puzzling inconsistent god.

[Blue Mountain]

Blue Mountain. I think you are spot on here.
"Goddidit" is an incredibly simple hypothetical explanatory mechanism for anything, not just plate tectonics. It's extensible to cover the whole universe, which is also its main failing. Any theory that covers everything without actually clarifying the method at a lower level , is in effect, useless.
Excellent point! By trying to explain everything one ends up explaining nothing. Indeed, one of the great mysteries for the faithful is why God seems to be so capricious. Taking God out of the equation and replacing him/her/them with something more mechanistic removes the mystery of why bad things happen to good people.

Plate tectonics explains a huge array of observed evidence which , previously, made little sense at all. It gives an explanatory mechanism for the cause, frequency and intensity of earthquakes and even some hope of a predictive model.
The fact one theory explains so much, and volcanoes too, is the trump card over the simpler explanation.

One wonders where all the simpletons come from. Perhaps God makes them?
In a strange way, that makes sense. If I was powerful enough to create sentient life, I'd put something into them that would cause them to be deferential to me, and feed me, and give me wealth. Until then I'm going to have to continue working nine-to-five.

[Soapy Sam]

In a strange way, that makes sense. If I was powerful enough to create sentient life, I'd put something into them that would cause them to be deferential to me, and feed me, and give me wealth. Until then I'm going to have to continue working nine-to-five.

In my more introspective moments, I have wondered what reward or satisfaction an omnipotent being could get from anything, supposing it to know in advance that it is omnipotent. It already knows it can create sentient beings and that they will pee in the sink.

Perhaps it was just lonely? Maybe what we should feel for such an entity is not awe, but sympathy?

[Wowbagger]

Occam's Razor can only be measured along with evidence, not by purely ontological arguments. Based on all available empirical evidence, Occam's Razor would say Plate Techtonics is the most reasonable explanation.

[Soapy Sam]

Occam's Razor can only be measured along with evidence, not by purely ontological arguments. Based on all available empirical evidence, Occam's Razor would say Plate Techtonics is the most reasonable explanation.

Well- the more reasonable of these two. But read geology textbooks from the early sixties and you can feel the bafflement. It felt the way physics does now; the data are mostly in, but we are looking at it wrong. The difference between understanding and belief is explanatory power; the Eureka moment.

[Cuddles]

In my more introspective moments, I have wondered what reward or satisfaction an omnipotent being could get from anything, supposing it to know in advance that it is omnipotent. It already knows it can create sentient beings and that they will pee in the sink.

Perhaps it was just lonely? Maybe what we should feel for such an entity is not awe, but sympathy?

I've always assumed God playing with Earth would be like me playing SimCity. It's all fun to build up a beautiful city full of happy people, but every now and then you get the irresistable urge to drop a giant alien robot in the middle and see what happens.

[Hellbound]

Various re-statements of Occam's Razor:

"The simplest explanation is generally the best." -- This is a paraphrase, and a poor one at that. Sadly, it's also the one heard most often, but is the least accurate representation of the Razor out there.

"The one with fewest assumptions and fewest hypothetical entities" -- this one's good, but a bit high-brow ;)

"The unknown should first be explained in terms of the known." -- This one's my favorite, as it gets tot he heart of it and is easily understandable. Whenever there's a new phenomena/new data/whatever, the first attempt to explain it should be in terms of what we already know. If you go to Mars, and notice that a rock falls to the surface, you don't postulate a new force (Marsity?)...you explain it in terms of the known force of gravity.

[SphereGuy]

This reminds me of how Steve Martin describes how to get a million dollars and not pay any taxes on it.

1. Get a million dollars from somewhere.
2. When the IRS asks why you didn't pay taxes, say, "I forgot."

[patnray]

Hypothesis number 1 relies on the following assumptions:
1. God exists
2. God is great enough to both create the Earth and shake it about a bit
3. On occasion he has reason to do so (the most common being he's upset at our actions)
Unless you are filming a movie about christ when the earthquake happens. Then it is a sign that god approves of your movie...

It's true!

Thats why Mel Gibson could claim that having his lead actor struck by lightning twice while filming his religious fantasy was a sign of god's approval. Otherwise people might think it was irresponsible of him to be filming at a location often struck by lightning during conditions that often produce lightning....

[Correa Neto]

What about considering the assumptions regarding the existence of God?

I think they would outnumber those related with the plate tectonics theory...

[Blue Mountain]

Unless you are filming a movie about christ when the earthquake happens. Then it is a sign that god approves of your movie... That's why Mel Gibson could claim that having his lead actor struck by lightning twice while filming his religious fantasy was a sign of god's approval. Otherwise people might think it was irresponsible of him to be filming at a location often struck by lightning during conditions that often produce lightning....
Heh! Unfortunately, relations between Mel Gibson and the Jews (remember, Jesus was a Jew and targeted his mission primarily to them) have taken a nosedive as of late.

[Blue Mountain]

What about considering the assumptions regarding the existence of God?

I think they would outnumber those related with the plate tectonics theory...
The primary assumption (that he exists) is a given to many people in many places. Not so around here, since evidence has become more scarce in the last 300 years, and proof even more so.

[Richard Hubbard]

Because it is the explanation for everything, and since I know about it all, I will claim to have exclusive control of this particular diety, which means that I know how to appease him, and cause him to behave in ways that I will direct. Therefore, give me lots of money and power, and I'll make sure the god is appeased.

That's the Ticket!:)

[Correa Neto]

The primary assumption (that he exists) is a given to many people in many places. Not so around here, since evidence has become more scarce in the last 300 years, and proof even more so.

Scarce for 300 years? Only 300?

Make it 13.7Gy...

The point is not the fact that most people believe God exists. My point is that "goddidit" is not the simplest explanation, due to te number of assumptions that need to be made to support the mere existence of a god that did it.

[Blue Mountain]

Scarce for 300 years? Only 300?

Make it 13.7Gy...
For me, 300 years is about the start of the scientific revolution. Since then science has been explaining a lot of things that previously had been explained by "goddidit". Earthquakes being a prime example. Epilepsy is another.

The point is not the fact that most people believe God exists. My point is that "goddidit" is not the simplest explanation, due to the number of assumptions that need to be made to support the mere existence of a god that did it.

Hmmm. I was going on the idea that assuming God exists was a single assumption. What others do you feel need adding?

[Correa Neto]

For me, 300 years is about the start of the scientific revolution. Since then science has been explaining a lot of things that previously had been explained by "goddidit". Earthquakes being a prime example. Epilepsy is another.

Well, we may have different readings on this.

The way I see it, nothing on the Universe that we are aware of, needs the "goddidit" explanation. Hence the 13.7 Gy.

Still, even tough I may be wrong, I guess explanations that do not involve "goddidit" were proposed even before the Renaissance. They may not have been correct, such as the subterranean winds idea for volcanoes, but they did not involved God directly.

Hmmm. I was going on the idea that assuming God exists was a single assumption. What others do you feel need adding?

Several others, usually discussed at the R&P forum.

Just to name two, not only God must exist, but it must also be the type of God that actively interacts with the universe, rather that just passively observes its creation.

Then there are several more questions and assumptions, that will specifically reffer to the particular concept of god we are using.

[Hawk one]

Because it is the explanation for everything, and since I know about it all, I will claim to have exclusive control of this particular diety, which means that I know how to appease him, and cause him to behave in ways that I will direct. Therefore, give me lots of money and power, and I'll make sure the god is appeased.

That's the Ticket!:)

Hey, that's -my- plan! :p

(Welcome to the forum, by the way)