2010-05-18, 22:04 | Link #10181 |
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
Occam's razor
Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor[1]), is the meta-theoretical principle that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem) and the conclusion thereof, that the simplest solution is usually the correct one. The principle is attributed to 14th-century English logician, theologian and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. Occam's razor may be alternatively phrased as pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate ("plurality should not be posited without necessity")[2]. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae (translating to the law of parsimony, law of economy or law of succinctness). When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood. To quote Isaac Newton, "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes."[3] In science, Occam’s razor is used as a heuristic (rule of thumb) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[4][5] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result.[6][7][8][9] EDIT: In mysteries solutions are usually so simple and obvious that you usually wouldn't notice them on the first read.
__________________
|
2010-05-18, 22:07 | Link #10182 | |
Maelstorm-Fenrir
|
Quote:
|
|
2010-05-18, 22:11 | Link #10183 | |
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Quote:
It is by far a simpler explanation of EP6 than any other theory so far. With a single theory you explain: - why there are only 17 persons including erika - how kanon managed to escape from the sealed room - how kanon disappeared from the closed room - why kanon and shannon are "less than human" - why it's impossible for both the george-shannon and jessica-kanon couples to be together. without shkanon you need One theory explaining how it is possible that Erika doesn't exist. One theory explaining how kanon escaped from the sealed room (usually Kanon-Kinzo) One theory explaining how Kanon "magically" disappeared from the closed room One theory explaining the meaning of the whole "love test". that's four theories in place of one. But the most relevant thing is that it is a fact that EP6 heavily hints shkanon in several occasions from the start to the end. Even those who do not like the shkanon theory recognize that, although they claim it is a troll. It might be a troll, but following Occam's razor logic it is a lot easier that things are exactly as they appears rather than there is some kind of conspiracy to make them seem that way when they are not. You can say that this is a fictional story and therefore Occam's razor logic doesn't work in this contest (which is perfectly reasonable as Oliver explained), but not that Occam's razor works against the shkanon theory. As difficult as it is to explain the shkanon theory, the other options are even more complex.
__________________
|
|
2010-05-18, 22:12 | Link #10184 | |
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
Now we are not Quit making stuff up. We have to take the context of the white red and blue and gold text into account as well as the hints in the story. Hints =/= assumptions. And most of the theories here are based on clues. Shkanon makes quite a lot of assumptions that something is true based on a a couple of hints. So does Erika not existing, but that requires less assumptions. Kanon escaping the location check is an entirely different thing though.
Quote:
Here is my claim. I don't need to automatically explain why Kanon was able to do it. The fact is that it was proclaimed that Kanon rescued Battler in red. So either no hints are required to come to the conclusion that Kanon rescued Battler or there must exist hints that we are not seeing due to Knox's 8th. This is true with and without Shkanon. How he disappeared from the closed room is a moot point.
__________________
|
|
2010-05-18, 22:16 | Link #10185 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
Quote:
In the area of theory, Occam's Razor states that the guy who makes a reasonable hypothesis using the least amount of assumptions wins. Related to Umineko, the theory which uses the least amount of assumption-based evidence and relies more on truth we can rely on, like the red, is the stronger and more reasonable theory. From my anti-Shkanon point of view, it doesn't support Shkanon very much, since a lot of the background Shkanon evidence is based off of assumptions. |
|
2010-05-18, 22:22 | Link #10186 |
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Any theory is based on assumptions, but as you said the one that wins is the one that explain most with less.
You are just looking at one side of the problem if you stop at the part where Shkanon needs too many assumptions and difficult explanations. Once you realize that, you should ask yourself if then there is another explanation that requires less assumptions.
__________________
|
2010-05-18, 22:23 | Link #10187 | |
Maelstorm-Fenrir
|
Quote:
Asumu died because of Battler's sin. Battler's sin is a promise to Maria. Battler and Jessica loved each other Battler had sex with someone Shannon faked her death in ep1 George took the chapel key from Rosa I'm pretty sure these assumptions have little to no hints about them. And as Jan-Poo said an assumption is a guess. Every theory we make is an assumption. |
|
2010-05-18, 22:28 | Link #10188 | |
Maelstorm-Fenrir
|
Quote:
|
|
2010-05-18, 22:30 | Link #10189 | |
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
Quote:
The rest I'm not even going to touch because they were stolen from 4chan and are therefore unreliable.
__________________
|
|
2010-05-18, 22:35 | Link #10190 | |
Maelstorm-Fenrir
|
Quote:
If you don't mind can we just drop this. It is really pointless, because there are many assumptions. For example: Maria thinks so highly of promises because Rosa always breaks the ones that she makes to her. |
|
2010-05-18, 22:39 | Link #10191 | |
Blick Winkel
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Gobbled up by Promathia
|
Quote:
In science, it just basically means that when two theories (of equal merit) are presented, the one with the least amount of complicated assumptions is probably the best bet. Example: In real life, projectile motion follows a parabolic path. Why does it do this? We've figured out that it is gravity. When a non-massless object is thrown, in conjunction with the acceleration of gravity, the force of weight causes it to come down. But there is no proof of this phenomenon! One could very well say that the "parabolic motion" of falling is caused by millions of purple gorillas pulling down at once. ...Okay, and there are NO purple gorillas in space. And they rely on photosynthesis to stay alive. While the theories technically cannot be proven... assuming someone were to provide evidence for the purple gorillas and would place it at a level equal to the gravity theory (which is not likely, but still) then gravity would still win. This is because gravity does not rely on so many unfounded, ridiculous assumptions. Since this is a MURDER MYSTERY game, where the author tries to make the game as complicated as possible without causing contradictions, the Occam's Razor is not only an unnecessary diversion but actually harmful for our thinking. It is extremely unlikely that any of this could possibly happen (even discounting the magic bits) and the solution was probably thought up at once by Ryukishi07. So coming to a conclusion based on only the simplicity of the ideas may seem like a good idea, but shouldn't be taken for granted. Not that it's a bad thing; I certainly don't want to have to integrate a 10th degree polynomial with my hands tied behind my back to prove how Asumu Ushiromiya is actually an alias for Natsuhi (shudder). But I doubt that you'd want to use the Occam's Razor as "reasonable proof" for a claim. |
|
2010-05-18, 22:46 | Link #10192 |
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
I'll repeat it again. This is my biggest gripe with Shkanon.
To explain numerous scenes for Shkanon with Battler around you need a disguise. There are no hints that anyone is suspicious that Shannon disguises as Kanon. There are however hints that almost everyone is suspicious of a Beatrice disguise with numerous statements of who could be involved. Shkanon does not have this kind of liberty. I have yet to see one hint from anyone of a Shannon or Kanon disguise other than "they were trained at the Fukuin house", which there are no hints for, and the scene in episode 2. Not one Shkanon theorist has provided any hints from 1986 that hints at this sort of disguise when this is obviously the time the disguise would be used. Where are the hints?
__________________
|
2010-05-18, 22:54 | Link #10193 | |
Blick Winkel
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Gobbled up by Promathia
|
Quote:
But this is still FAR from conclusive evidence of the theory. |
|
2010-05-18, 23:44 | Link #10194 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
I can't say anything for Episode 6, since I haven't read it, but the two of them are shown together in Episode 5. However, this is from an unreliable third-person narrative ('cause apparently since all fantasy scenes, except the ones involving drunk or magic-believing people, are in third-person, the only "reliable" narrative is sober Battler and flashbacks) so most Shkanon supporters refuse to acknowledge it.
I also have to agree with Judoh on the disguise of Shkanon. Even more so, I call Knox's 10th on it: "It is forbidden for one character to disguise themselves as another." Of course, if you could show logical evidence that a guise existed, I'll give on this point. |
2010-05-19, 00:03 | Link #10195 | ||||||||||||
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So yeah, it's not even really the simplest explanation of ep6. It's just an explanation that happens to provide an answer for everything, no matter how foolish it has to make itself look. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The only criterion by which we should be judging the complexity of a mystery story is whether it "works." That's not a terribly good description, I know, but the concept is not too hard to understand: When the author finally reveals his or her answer, does everything he or she wrote leading up to that point "click?" Our response to a well-written mystery's revelation is "Of course! All those things I missed, everything adds together, and it explains why <various events> happened!" Whether we have to manage a Murder on the Orient Express or The Big Sleep degree of culprit complexity, or whether there's just one nefarious mastermind all along, it has to satisfyingly come together when the culprit is fingered and the clues gathered. If it does, it worked. If it doesn't, it didn't. Shkanon cannot give us that satisfaction. It just doesn't answer things that are important. Focusing on it solving two things in a single episode doesn't make it credible; people had a working Natsuhi-culprit concept for ep1 before ep5, but would Natsuhi as the culprit really make any sense for 2-4? Not really. Trying to explain all the other episodes with Natsuhi behind everything (as Erika said she'd try to do in ep5) is just not a good idea. The reason why is, it raises more questions than it answers. For all the vaunted value Shkanon claims to provide, it fails to answer critical thematic issues in the story:
Last edited by Renall; 2010-05-19 at 00:30. |
||||||||||||
2010-05-19, 00:52 | Link #10198 |
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
After a lot of the stuff we've debated about I've come to this conclusion. The characters are not something to be dwelled on. The end red at episode 6 that seems to need to lower the count to 16 can work with several different theories. Some of them use the same person idea some of them have people being off the island in episode 6 some of them involve someone having to be killed or "written out" to introduce Erika or the furniture concept, and some just put faith in Erika not existing.
But all of these are just variables. They're variables that are cogs in a full equation. None of them are "answers". Some of them fit with culprits better than others. Whichever one is true is something I don't care about anymore. I don't WANT shkanon to be true, but if it is I'm hoping for a clever culprit using that to their advantage. I would also prefer NOT to have Erika not existing to be true even though I'd lean towards that since she's been around less. None of these solutions answer what consistently happens in all episodes (if you can find any consistency in them). If there is one culprit or mastermind or handler or whatever you want to call it you have to think of which one your variable fits with. Because the solutions we have here for those final reds in episode 6 certainly do not explain everything by themselves. I still want hints for that disguise by the way.
__________________
|
2010-05-19, 00:59 | Link #10199 | ||||
Maelstorm-Fenrir
|
Nanjo knows something... In ep 2 he says this.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
XD old man nanjo has a well built stomach. Quote:
|
||||
|
|