>> Yes, but you haven't accepted the central premise of all my posts yet, which is
that entities should only not be multiplied "without necessity."
This is not the central premise of all your posts. For most of our interaction
the central premise of your posts was that I'm misunderstanding the intended use of
Occam's Razor. In recent posts you concluded that the reason I misunderstand it
is that I don't take into account the "necessity" part of the Razor's original
formulation.
Yet, I have constantly said that we don't need to assume that there is a third
person in the car because the two people we already know were in the car suffice
to explain the crash and that therefore assuming a third person in the car is
multiplying entities beyond necessity.
In fact, I keep repeating the "beyond necessity" part like a broken record, so
how come you're now insisting that I'm missing that particular point?
I think what you are saying is that you "need" to assume a third person in the
car, otherwise you can't explain what happened. Well, that is a "need" in the
same way that "I don't have an iPhone, therefore I need to get one" is a "need".
It's not so much a "need" as a "want". You can't think of anything better and
you want to explain what happenned, so you make up some entity that must be
responsible for what happened. So you have an explanation you're happy with and
your "need" for an explanation you're happy with is satisfied.
However, that's still "multiplying entities beyond necessity" because you may
"need" an explanation, but you don't need a third person in the car to explain the
crash.
This is not the central premise of all your posts. For most of our interaction the central premise of your posts was that I'm misunderstanding the intended use of Occam's Razor. In recent posts you concluded that the reason I misunderstand it is that I don't take into account the "necessity" part of the Razor's original formulation.
Yet, I have constantly said that we don't need to assume that there is a third person in the car because the two people we already know were in the car suffice to explain the crash and that therefore assuming a third person in the car is multiplying entities beyond necessity.
In fact, I keep repeating the "beyond necessity" part like a broken record, so how come you're now insisting that I'm missing that particular point?
I think what you are saying is that you "need" to assume a third person in the car, otherwise you can't explain what happened. Well, that is a "need" in the same way that "I don't have an iPhone, therefore I need to get one" is a "need". It's not so much a "need" as a "want". You can't think of anything better and you want to explain what happenned, so you make up some entity that must be responsible for what happened. So you have an explanation you're happy with and your "need" for an explanation you're happy with is satisfied.
However, that's still "multiplying entities beyond necessity" because you may "need" an explanation, but you don't need a third person in the car to explain the crash.