I have two questions, one concerning Ockham's Razor the other one concerning empiry.

Hello, this is my first time posting on this subreddit. Ockham's Razor:

I am a physics student, and we once had an uninformed discussion about quantum mechanics. And one of the students supported the view of hidden parameters, because he feels, that assuming there is inherent randomness in the world is a far fetched conclusion and the much easier conclusion would be, there are parameters, we have yet to find. As in assuming inherent randomness, is more than assuming hidden parameters, thus Ockham's Razor tells us, we should stick to hidden parameters. I however feel, that not assuming additional rules or hidden parameters is assuming less, and therefore desirable as of Ockham's Razor. Unfortunately there is no way of measuring of how much has been assumed. Since both sides can use this argument for themselves, this should lead ockham's razor to absurdity shouldn't it? While this is more from a gut feeling point of view, I think I can illustrate this with an example using programming language. Writting "Hello World" in C is not hard, but it takes a few lines. If you write "Hello World" in HQ9 ,it's trivial. I dont know if it is possible to write a matirx multiplicator, but I doubt it works in HQ9 if you write in FRACTRAN it will be very hard. So expressing concepts in different languages, also in natural languages, compare chinese abstracts concepts embedded in the language and german/english concepts embedded in the language is not equally simple. The "amounts" of assumption are not invariant when the assumption is translated. Isn'T that a big problem for Ockham's Razor?

Second Question:

Empirical research has a special logical status is science. I of course don't have an alternative to suggest, but empirical research is justified through itself. The answer on why we rely on our expierence is, because in our experience, experience was always a great thing to listen too. Isn't this kind of similar to what happens, when talking about revelations of any kind? Revelation and empirical research both vouch for themselves through themselves. If I doubted empirical research, we'd just go ahead and make an experiment which would probably yield, that empirical research was right all along. If I doubted a revelation, you'd just point to the part of the revelation, where it states "this is right".

I can't say I really understand your second question (or even see a question posed, as such) but you may want to look into the problem of induction, and arguments for and against positivism.

/r/PhilosophyofScience Thread