Jump to content
Main menu
Main menu
move to sidebar
hide
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
Help about MediaWiki
Special pages
Niidae Wiki
Search
Search
Appearance
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Create account
Log in
Pages for logged out editors
learn more
Contributions
Talk
Editing
Ontological commitment
(section)
Page
Discussion
English
Read
Edit
View history
Tools
Tools
move to sidebar
hide
Actions
Read
Edit
View history
General
What links here
Related changes
Page information
Appearance
move to sidebar
hide
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
===Ontological parsimony=== Whatever process one uses to determine the ontological commitments of a theory, that does not prescribe what ontological commitments one should have. Quine regarded this as a matter of [[epistemology]], which theory one should accept. "Appeal is made to [concerns of] explanatory power, parsimony, conservatism, precision, and so on".<ref name=Routledge/> Ontological parsimony can be defined in various ways, and often is equated to versions of [[Occam's razor]], a "rule of thumb, which obliges us to favor theories or hypotheses that make the fewest unwarranted, or ''ad hoc'', assumptions about the data from which they are derived."<ref name=Henke/> Glock regards 'ontological parsimony' as one of the 'five main points' of Quine's conception of ontology.<ref name=Glock/> Following Quine,<ref name=QuineW/> Baker states that a theory, ''T'', is ''ontologically committed'' to items ''F'' if and only if ''T'' entails that ''Fβ²''s exist. If two theories, ''T<sub>1</sub>'' and ''T<sub>2</sub>'', have the same ontological commitments except that ''T<sub>2</sub>'' is ontologically committed to ''Fβ²''s while ''T<sub>1</sub>'' is not, then ''T<sub>1</sub>'' is more parsimonious than ''T<sub>2</sub>''. More generally, a sufficient condition for ''T<sub>1</sub>'' being more parsimonious than ''T<sub>2</sub>'' is for the ontological commitments of ''T<sub>1</sub>'' to be a proper subset of those of ''T<sub>2</sub>''.<ref name=Baker/> These ideas lead to the following particular formulation of Occam's razor: 'Other things being equal, if ''T<sub>1</sub>'' is more ontologically parsimonious than ''T<sub>2</sub>'' then it is rational to prefer ''T<sub>1</sub>'' to ''T<sub>2</sub>''.' While a common formulation stipulates only that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity, this version by contrast, states that entities should not be multiplied ''other things being equal'', and this is compatible with parsimony being a comparatively weak theoretical virtue.<ref name=Baker/>
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to Niidae Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see
Encyclopedia:Copyrights
for details).
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Search
Search
Editing
Ontological commitment
(section)
Add topic