I never agreed with that when it's used to reference extremely complex issues

Occams razor works in day to day life but not the largest scale of details

then again the saying to never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupity always annoyed me. Why can't it be both?

It should be

I mean

Don't assume evil intent or incompetence to suit your worldview

Figure it out and get used to saying "not enough information"

Occams razor would suggest a lot of shit that mainstream doesn't believe in

it's the basis of the left feeding on itself

It's used to suit their agendas

and the formation of echo chambers

Yeah that is pretty scary

Glad I found a place that is founded on opposition to echo chambers and tribes

At least that is what I hope this is

For example though, if the simplest answer is probably true, then the earth is flat

On the other hand from another perspective, if NASA says it's a globe, then go with it because lying is complex

But then we rely on many complex understandings which goes against occams razor

I never liked it even as a kid

your talking about people that say 2+2=5 and that 4-2=2 in the same breath though

Bad example then

somehow they can see stuff that is opposed to each other and see it as supporting their desired outcome

So if someone says the Nazis did it, and the Nazis say they didn't, which one is simpler and thus more right due to occams razor

basic cleaning done, fan is MUCH quieter now

I suppose I am struggling to find a belief held by the same group that uses it and doesn't in another case

The point is to say that "the simplest answer is likely true" just isn't true

It's always used in reference to complex issues

It's fair to use occams razor like "I can't find my keys. Maybe the aliens took them? No, that's too unlikely and complex"

the history channels agrees that it was aliens

The problem with 'the simplest answer is likely true' is that 'likely' can be anywhere from 51% to 99.9~%.

Dr. Peterson talked about how if you were to take a guess between one man and one woman, which would be more violent, you'd be right 60% of the time on the man and 40% of the time on the woman.

So even though it's 'likely' that a man is the more violent out of the two it's basically a coin flip on the right answer.

To be specific, Peterson said that while the distribution is 60/40 over the total population, the most violent people are pretty much invariably men

Yeah I agree with perceived likelihood but people used it to write off possibilities

Sometimes things are complex

Because that slight proclivity results in a larger difference at the extremes basicslly

Likelihood seems to mostly be determined based on what people want to be true

In general that is

The 'likelyhood' that people would conspire seems to be pretty high given that humans are social animals.

See that is how I think @Malt_Hitman

It's odd to say otherwise but conspire needs to be defined

Working together in secret