From Our Readers The letters column is a forum for views multiplied beyond necessity." But when on matters raised in previous issues. Let­ we translate this statement into "the ters are more likely to be published if simplest explanation for an observation they are brief and typed double-spaced. is most likely to be the correct one," then They may be edited for space and clarity. I pause. In the first place, if the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct, then it is not always correct. Then how Occam's Razor do we know when it is correct? A law with exceptions is of no use unless we I agree with Elie Shneour's results in his have a rule defining the exceptions. article on Occam's Razor (SI, Summer As a matter of fact, there is no reason 1986), but disagree with the method he to believe that the simplest explanation uses to arrive at them. If we take the for anything is the correct one. There is meaning of Occam's Razor to be "the no scientific or logical basis for this belief. simplest explanation for an observation It is simply a convenient prejudice. is most likely to be the correct one," what Counterexamples abound. Consider John is the observation that he is trying to Dalton's belief that all elemental gases explain? Is he trying to explain the bib­ are composed of molecules, each with a lical account of the Flood? Where is there single atom. This was the simplest theory an observation of a flood or an ark? The that explained the observations of the only thing we observe is a story about a day. Dalton's belief led him to conclude flood and ark in the Bible. Applying that the atomic weight of oxygen was 8 Occam's Razor to that story, the simplest (instead of 16), leading to a confusion explanation is that human beings, in among chemists that lasted from 1803 to writing the Bible, used their imaginations 1860. to elaborate on certain myths that had In modern physics, relativity and been handed down from before the time quantum theory explain the observations of writing. better than Newtonian mechanics and are Actually, what Dr. Shneour has done much more complicated than Newtonian is to apply the method of reductio ad mechanics. But the essential point is that absurdum to the account of the Flood. the observations get explained. The sim­ He considers the story as a hypothesis, plicity or complexity of the theory has applies deductive logic, deduces what no bearing on its acceptance. must have taken place considering the number of animal species we now recog­ Milton Rothman nize, and shows that the result is absurd. Philadelphia, Pa. With this kind of logic there is no argu­ ment. What bothers me is holding up I read Elie Shneour's article with great Occam's Razor as a "verity"—a statement interest. May I add in the spirit of assumed to be a permanent truth. It is Occam's Razor that careful reading of certainly true that "things must not be many biblical texts is all that is necessary Winter 1986-87 213 to apply the razor to many creationists' aboard (seven of the clean). Therefore claims. Although I appreciated all the calculations of the number of existing data Shneour provided, he did not have species becomes (according to this argu­ to go to all that work. ment) irrelevant. Further, many "kinds"— If one reads the Genesis account of marine animals and larval insects, for the Flood carefully one can see that it is instance—need not have been sheltered really two separate accounts loosely tied aboard the ark to survive the Flood. A together by some editors). For instance, popular current estimate of the number one of the accounts tells us that God of animals taken on board is 35,000. required Noah to transport pairs of all Plant seeds could have survived the Flood animals, but later we suddenly hear that in a variety of ways. Babies rather than God wants seven pairs of all clean ani­ adults of the larger "kinds" were taken, mals and pairs of animals that are it is surmised, to avoid crowding. And unclean—as if the ark were not crowded perhaps most animals were able to hiber­ enough! Even though it is less clear, the nate for the duration, eliminating most duration of the Flood is in great dispute. of the food storage (and much of the One account tells us that the Flood lasted elimination) problem. 150 days, while in the other account it The "world that perished," the ante­ lasted about half that time. So, how long diluvian earth, was a much different place did this catastrophic world flood last? from what we now inhabit. There were Obviously I could continue these no high mountains, so the objection to examples for a very long time, but the the volume of water necessary to sub­ examples do not prove or disprove the merge present-day Ararat—not to men­ story. I believe it is important to under­ tion Everest—disappears. (I believe this stand that faith is not dependent upon was pointed out in a response to Jukes's scientific "proof in the data; rather, faith original article.) Also, the Flood waters is a response to God's perceived action were not supplied by our everyday sort in the world. When the creationists or of rain, but by the collapse of the pre- anyone attempt to account "scientifically" Flood canopy: the "waters above the for biblical statements of faith, it is firmament." This consisted of water in neither good science nor good religion. either vapor, liquid, or ice form, and con­ And that is the time we need to sharpen tained the equivalent of 40 feet of water. Occam's Razor. But the bulk of the water came from the "fountains of the deep." There were no Kevin B. Buchanan deep oceans in the antediluvian earth, Oregon, Mo. only springs and streams, and perhaps shallow seas. The deep ocean basins formed as a result of the Flood and now Elie Shneour, in "Occam's Razor," uses accommodate the waters that totally sub­ as his example a literal interpretation of merged the antediluvian plains and low the Flood and Noah's ark. It should be hills. noted that creationists have devised many Of course there is no independent ingenious—though totally ad hoc— evidence for any of these purely ad hoc hypotheses to get around some of the speculations. They are devised solely to obvious difficulties he presents. It is im­ preserve the Flood interpretation. (And portant to acknowledge these; otherwise, supernatural explanations are openly Shneour leaves himself open to the charge relied upon to get around the unavoidable of misrepresenting current creation- difficulties in Rood geology and with the science arguments and attacking a straw ark, in addition to Creation itself.) Thus man. Shneour's main point—science's pre­ Most practitioners of creation-science ference for the more parsimonious deny that all living species had to be explanation—still applies powerfully to represented on the ark. Noah took two this case. But we should be careful that of each originally created Genesis "kind" what we are attacking is what the crea- 214 THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, Vol. 11 tionists are actually now asserting, lest "Occam's Razor" presented a useful tool we lose credibility with some of our audi­ for discussing issues with people who are ence on technicalities. already capable of and committed to scientific thinking. However, it avoids a Tom Mclver serious problem: all of those other people. Los Angeles, Calif. That omission may be due to a common misconception: that humans are "con­ The writer is the author of "Ancient Tales structed" to think logically and effectively, and Space-Age Myths of Creationist but that many of us just haven't perfected Evangelism" in our Spring 1986 that ability quite yet. issue.—ED. On the contrary, the experiences, in­ cluding education, that "construct" most people do not seem to foster such think­ As an orthodox Christian, I am frequent­ ing. In particular, a high percentage of ly embarrassed by theologians who make humans, including some scientists, accept statements about science that are naive words as a source of knowledge, often in and absolute. But I am equally em­ the form of a revelation from a god and barrassed by scientists who make naive, subsequent pronouncements by deputies. absolute statements about religion like Both differing revelations and contradic­ those of Elie A. Shneour in his "Occam's tions within one revelation are ignored; Razor." I have no quarrel with the body indifference or faith enables most to rise of his article, in which he applies Occam's above such imcompatibilities when they Razor to the Genesis account of the are pointed out. Flood. My discomfort is with the first paragraphs, where, with a literary wave William G. Keehn of the hand, he dismisses philosophical Mountain View, Calif. questions of the greatest depth as though they came from last week's National Enquirer. I enjoyed very much the articles on re­ Mr. Shneour asserts that "most reli­ peatability and Occam's Razor in your gions require uncritical beliefs, resignation Summer issue. Someone is finally tackling to earthly fate in silence, and above all parapsychology's logic as well as its facts. that no questions be asked." I am sur­ Let me suggest another fallacy to tackle. prised that Mr. Shneour has had the time While it is more obscure than those in to examine the foundations of all the your articles, it seems to me parapsy­ world's religions, in their depth and com­ chology's old standby.