Does citing PCID justify censorship?
|March 16, 2008||Posted by DLH under Intelligent Design|
“a corollary from Occam’s Razor, which I shall call herein ”Einstein’s Razor.” The notion that a theory should be as simple as possible (but no simpler). . . Einstein’s Razor brings forward the following notion: ”even when a simple explanation is theoretically sufficient, it is sometimes insufficient to reach desired goals.” That is, some ”needs” or ”goals” are not necessarily attainable by the simpler of two or more systems. . . . When Occam’s Razor is insufficiently sharp to split hairs, Einstein’s Razor is required.”
Telesis-Driven Introduction of Complexity into Apparently Sufficiently Non-Complex Linguistic Systems, Progress in Complexity, Intelligence & Design, Vol. 4.2 November 2005.
FeloniousMonk promptly deleted all edits including the link to “Einstein’s razor” from Intelligent Design, and then marked the “Einstein’s razor” page for deletion.
Cohort JoshuaZ recommends:
delete This appears to be a neologism, used primarily by proponents of intelligent design. A google search returns 143 hits the first of which is from the more or less defunct PCID of the pro-ID ISCID. The remaining hits are primarily forum posts discussing it.
Does citing PCID and ISCID justify deleting “Einstein’s razor” because it is “pro-ID”?
If you think this is anti-ID discrimination and against academic freedom and free speech, then please provide supporting comments to retain this article at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Einstein’s razor
Your comments to help edit and expand the article on “Einstein’s razor” would also be welcome.
Please comment on whether you think “Einstein’s razor” is indeed just a “neologism”, or if it provides a useful differentiation from Occam’s razor. e.g.,
1) Is neo-Darwinian evolution with “random mutation” and “natural selection” an example of providing the “simplest” scientific hypothesis per Occam’s razor?
2) Or is that an improper use of Occam’s razor?
3) Or is “RM + NS” “too simple” and in need of a better theory per Einstein’s razor?