Re: Dinosaurimony (Re: Definitions...)

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 98-08-10 18:56:24 EDT, cbrochu@fmppr.fmnh.org writes
(quoting me, quoting Wagner):

<< >In a message dated 98-08-10 16:58:55 EDT, znc14@TTACS.TTU.EDU writes:
 >
 ><< "The simplest explanantion which accounts for the most data
 > with the least number of unsubstantiated hypotheses and unsupportable
 > assumptions is the most likely to be correct." >>
 >
 >Unfortunately, accounting for the most data, having the least number of
 >unsubstantiated hypotheses and unsupportable assumptions, and being the
 >simplest explanation are mutually independent, so a parsimonius hypothesis
may
 >be impossible to formulate.
 
 
 "Parsimonious" is always used in a relative sense.  One rarely obtains a CI
 of 1.0 with a comprehensive data set, but no one is saying "Hey - my
 hypothesis is PARSIMONIOUS."  Rather, the point is that one hypothesis is
 more parsimonious than another. >>

Ah, yes. But nowhere does znc14@TTACS.TTU.EDU assert any kind of relativity
for his "parsimony." The point being that one must somehow measure simplicity
versus data fitting versus unsupported assumptions in order to determine
parsimony.