It is more probable that A, than that A and B.
Occam’s razor
Conjunction fallacy
Burdensome details
Litany of Tarski
Litany of Gendlin
I can see the appeal here—litanies tend to have a particular style after all—but I wonder if we can improve it.
I see two problems:
This doesn’t convey that Occam’s razor is about explanations of observations.
In general, one explanation is not a logical “subset” of the other. So the comparison is not between A and A and B; it is between A and B.
A
A and B
B
Perhaps one way forward would involve a mention (or reference to) Minimum Description Length (MDL) or Kolmogorov complexity.
Current theme: default
Less Wrong (text)
Less Wrong (link)
Arrow keys: Next/previous image
Escape or click: Hide zoomed image
Space bar: Reset image size & position
Scroll to zoom in/out
(When zoomed in, drag to pan; double-click to close)
Keys shown in yellow (e.g., ]) are accesskeys, and require a browser-specific modifier key (or keys).
]
Keys shown in grey (e.g., ?) do not require any modifier keys.
?
Esc
h
f
a
m
v
c
r
q
t
u
o
,
.
/
s
n
e
;
Enter
[
\
k
i
l
=
-
0
′
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
→
↓
←
↑
Space
x
z
`
g
I can see the appeal here—litanies tend to have a particular style after all—but I wonder if we can improve it.
I see two problems:
This doesn’t convey that Occam’s razor is about explanations of observations.
In general, one explanation is not a logical “subset” of the other. So the comparison is not between
AandA and B; it is betweenAandB.Perhaps one way forward would involve a mention (or reference to) Minimum Description Length (MDL) or Kolmogorov complexity.