some comments on earlier responses
To all:
Some comments on some points related to this thread.
First, the comments on Occam's Razor. Cujo, Breakfast and rynner all contribute their version of the definition of the term. Occam's Razor, and, particularly, its evident rabid usage by those who seem determined not to extend credence to anything not covered by "traditional science", is a commonplace on the Fortean Times site. Its invoking, by those who refuse to accept anything that the journal Nature has not "anointed" as "true", seems to all but guarantee that the thread being discussed is destined to become a wasteland of cunning and precious swipes at those who dare to acknowledge the existence of something beyond what can be measured on an oscilloscope. "Traditionalists" consider the invoking of Occam's Razor as a kind of summa qua non, meaning that they seem to brand as "idiot" anyone who continues to argue their case in the face of that rule. Unfortunately, too, many who do believe in aspects to the world beyond the immediate do not seem to feel the equal of contesting the legitimacy of the principles. This has gone a long way toward granting Occam's Razor a not very palatable air among those not counted among the ranks of the fanatically skeptical.
To be fair, a large part of this can be laid to the way in which the devotees of the apparent mean-minded, unflagging intent to disbelieve particular things, which has come to be called "skepticism", handle the principle. Much of the bad taste associated with mention of the rule, too, can be attributed to some evidently spectacular failings in the principle itself!
Among the fanatically skeptical - and, be assured, there is just such a group! - Occam's Razor seems intended only as a bludgeon for further discussion, not a tool of understanding. The fanatically skeptical are a breed of individual, basically invested with a degree of venom commonly seen, throughout history. In the wake of the apparent attempted hegemonic hijacking of society by "traditional science", these individuals jumped on the science bandwagon, evidently because they seem to consider them better funded, and less scrupulous. And, from this vantage, they unleash their assaults on the sensitivities of those they would see as their prey. Basically, Occam's Razor is an engine of spite. Despite all the evidence in favor of anything not in accordance with "traditional science" - and until "traditional science", apparently, finds a way to make a buck on the phenomenon! - the fanatically skeptical will utterly, completely and categorically refuse to accede its existence!
And they will use Occam's Razor as a means toward that end.
Someone may posit that they actually saw a transparent being from the Fairy World hovering in the air, before them. Just to see them squirm, the fanatically skeptical would say that believing it was a fairy violates Occam's Razor. They then would proceed with claiming some cockamamie concoction of conditions so unlikely as to be all but impossible. Someone on the other side of the hill was using a super high powered lamp, for some purpose, and someone just happened to be nearby when the light was turned on. The light shone off them, hitting a nearby placid body of water at a particularly shallow angle. This mirage of light, then, was bounced up into the atmosphere, where it reflected off a low lying layer of ice crystals, after which it was reflected back toward the observer. Between the ice crystals on the observer, there was an area of light fog, and the light shone through the fog, looking like it was coming from some place close to the observer.
Which is simpler, that the vision was a fairy, or that the complicated "traditional" interaction occurred?
The fanatically skeptical, however, will stand by their explanation. And, if it is disproved, they will simply cobble together another "traditional" explanation, no matter how non-credible. And, after that, yet another "traditional" explanation. And another. And another. And another. Anything to avoid saying that the non-traditional are right!
And it is here that the inherent failings of the rule come into play.
Because, in its most general application, Occam's Razor does rather resemble a car with the brake off, rolling downhill. It careens forward, rolling over everything in its path, plowing into anything that gets in its way. It may be a beautiful piece of machinery, but it still is acting like a Juggernaut.
That's because, like Occam's Razor, the car rolling downhill doesn't have a brake. Occam's Razor may have specifically defined directions for its use, but there are, apparently, no provisions given for when to stop using it! Those devoted to its use are only given the "benediction" by Occam's Razor to use it and keep on using it! They are directed, at no time, when to stop! No matter how ludicrous and palpably unlikely a combination of "traditional" factors is, Occam's Razor recommends invoking them; it stands behind them and gives them "credibility"; and it gives the fanatically skeptical the ammunition they crave to "justify" harassing the non-traditional in their pursuits!
They posit laughable - and insultingly insipid - “counter explanation” after “counter explanation”, apparently all the while chuckling up their sleeve at the discomfort they are causing the believers in the enigmatic!
In fact, Occam’s Razor shapes up as little more than a pseudo-philosophical codification of the “fanatical skeptic’s” apparent mean streak!
There seems more honor in thinking twice about using Occam's Razor than there is in using it.
To be a guide, a method must show a history of being able to direct someone in the right direction, in a reasonable amount of time. Occam’s Razor seems not to be any better, in directing inquiry, than just choosing a theory at random, then testing it. For its part, Occam’s Razor seems to serve no more purpose than simply forestalling the “fanatical skeptics” accepting the theories of the non-traditionalists. While you can gussy spitefulness up in five syllable words, it’s still like a hog in a party dress. And, while that may facilitate the machinations of the malign, it can be a long ways off from an appropriate methodology for pursuing the truth.
Another point I just wanted to make in passing is to be careful booting up the website
http://www.fayerie.cjb.net, mentioned by DanJW. When I did, it essentially hijacked my computer. First, it froze the screen. Then, it seemed to turn the status bar into a button. Then, sequentially, it seemed to start to deactivate parts of the workspace. Finally, I had to turn the computer off manually, then restart it, causing the software to have to run through the kind of assay of files that usually occurs, when the system is not shut down through the software. Think twice before going to that site.
Julian Penrod