Monday, January 22, 2018
Hobson's choice vs. Occam's razor
Other than holding a bunch of unarmed noncombatants hostage to ideological conflicts that have as much lasting consequence as the Nestorian heresy the worst part about neo-tribalism is how once you pick sides you have to swallow an entire set of orthodoxies in one big bolus. As a result you got smart people who choose to be stupid on specific chosen topics. Like there’s good science that indicates that climate change is caused by human agency and that GMO foods are safe and nutritious. And most of us are absolutely convinced that one of those statements cannot possibly be true.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Not unlike your post re. the NFL (11/27/17, Jockies or Boxers) wherein either observation is arguably correct but interpreted as political opposites, might not the title here be “Hobson’s razor vs. Occam’s fork, as both conclusions are arguably true within opposing neo-tribal orthodoxy, but originate equally from differing (view)point(s)–only as sophistic, Morton-esque, false-dilemmas rather than preferential, but totally obvious truths, versus “take-it-or-leave-it” proofs?
Personally, you can title your work anything you like, it’s not my intention to rename them. I just enjoy an opportunity to divert otherwise planned activities for the morning, surfing terms and/or concepts suggested in these rants.
Thank you, and your erudite posts.
JP
Ummm. Yeah, what he said.
Wait. I was following you pretty good until the "Morton" reference. Jelly Roll? Downey Jr?
o sorry
That's 'as in' Morton's Fork. Divergent observations leading to an identical conclusion.
JP
I missed the reference. I attribute this to "Maleckar's Slotted Spoon," a tendency to capture certain big lumps of information while letting everything else drain away.
Post a Comment