Just like the conspiracy nut, the anti-conspiracy nut comes in all shapes and colo(u)rs. Whether declaring the non-cabal-itude of the neocon merch into Iraq, or defending another's "measured support" of it as the result of having been tricked, the anti-conspiracy nuts would insist that the existence beyond this year of 50,000 military "advisors" in Babylon suggests no collaborative slight of hand. Any other reasoning is too complicated, therefore least likely true.
See, the author of the linked piece above uses Occam's Razor as his grand show of reason.
I wonder if conspirators are always so careful to apply that maxim of simplicity to their schemes. Do you think, for instance, that one of those Cuban exiles turned to Howard Hunt and said, "Wouldn't all this be simpler, if Oswald were the lone gunman?"
Or did the Secretary of State and the Vice President's respective campaign managers tell them to say that they simply didn't read the intelligence report? That'd do.
And do you suppose James Earl Ray called Hoover to inform him how his men kept obscuring his line of sight?
I'll tell you this: When considering the long line of public figures who've been assassinated by a deranged individual (including when they offed themselves), I wonder how the deranged always manage to get a copy of the FBI's watch list.
Occam's Razor has had as much to do with a simplicity of assumptions based upon the limit of knowledge at any given time (in the original case, the middle ages) as it has been a reasonable consideration of probabilities. And its political application has been to reduce it to this approximation: Considering alternatives to the official version of things could open a wholebay of pigs can of worms.
Hence, we extrapolate from:
"The simplest explanation is most likely the correct one."
-To conclude that:
"A more convenient explanation will get us home in time for dinner, and Mom 'll be none the wiser."
And who was this Willy Fro Mockem anyway? Must've been a brilliant mathematician, whose algorithmic way of thought paved the way for twentieth-century reckoning, which led to the programming language with his name, right? I dunno, I can more easily imagine that nerds just dig using names from the past to show that they like to read as well as cypher.
He is credited as being a physicist, however, like Newton. But the latter, who in spite of being a proponent of a razor-like mental approach, did not find the best explanation for an apple falling to the ground to be: "Well, the ground is down there, duh."
If you're thinking that I've just taken Occam's Razor to an idiotic extreme, then touché.
The fact that William from Ockham was a Franciscan theologian, philosopher, and meta-physicist, who found himself at odds with the Pope, sought and received protection from the Holy Roman Emperor in Bavaria, and was rehabilitated a few Papacies down the road certainly doesn't discount his accomplishments as a logician. On the contrary, his radical status in that regard only serves to boost his reputation. But I assert that he has less in common with the current scientific method than does this guy:
Just the kind of person modern science mocks.
But let's forget the most convenient historical figure with whom to credit "the simplest idea" and see if the idea itself helps clarify why things are the way they are:
What is the simplest explanation for the continued existence of the Holy Roman Catholic Church?
Is it that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, fulfilling age-old prophesy and washing away our sins, and that the power of this story anchored faith firmly in this most divine of institutions? Or is it that it's easier to exercise power over prepubescent boys when everybody thinks you're infallible?
Seriously, is the religion pure and magic, or did Rome just take advantage of superstition to advance its dominion?
Or are the Benedicts of the world just misunderstood clowns providing children with joy, when not giving them nightmares?
And the simplest explanation for pederasty in this one, holy, catholic and apostolic church would be?
Is it as these guys say, that it's more of a homo thing?
That's a pretty simple explanation. So is it most likely the correct one? I mean, it couldn't be that when you forbid the expression of sexuality, it might find an even more private outlet, and when you give someone power and authority (and sovereignty and immunity), they might abuse it?
As more egalitarian thinkers in the Church point out, this problem of sexual abuse extends itself to clergy of all denominations. Some will also remind you that the most common occurrences of pedophilia are within the nuclear family.
So it seems to me that the simplest explanation is that if you leave an infinite number of adults with an infinite number of children for a long enough period of time, at least one of them is going to write a Jacobean tragedy.
And therefore the most straightforward interpretation of its having been a recurring theme dioecesis omnivagus involves priests having been alone with boys an awful lot.
But what of the cover-up of these misdeeds? Well, obviously the church would try to hide the fact that priests are buggering alter-boys because it would make the Church look bad if their trusted faithful could not be faithfully trusted.
But does this account for the illogic of repeatedly putting children in harm's way, even after attempts at transferral, rehabilitation, absolution, and reconciliation have time and again returned to bite them in their collective ass-covering, butt-boring behind?
Could less complicated reasoning suggest that someone wants to uphold ritual sex-abuse?
I mean, when the Feds break up a child pornography ring, are accessories after the fact just trying to keep the family from looking like freaks, or is there something happening that is a little more twisted in its simplicity?
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. And if an organization as unpopular and maligned as the Church of Rome can continue to circumvent outside scrutiny, simply imagine what goes on elsewhere where power and authority congregate.
Martin Luther The King is dead. The Lord is Risen!
See, the author of the linked piece above uses Occam's Razor as his grand show of reason.
I wonder if conspirators are always so careful to apply that maxim of simplicity to their schemes. Do you think, for instance, that one of those Cuban exiles turned to Howard Hunt and said, "Wouldn't all this be simpler, if Oswald were the lone gunman?"
Or did the Secretary of State and the Vice President's respective campaign managers tell them to say that they simply didn't read the intelligence report? That'd do.
And do you suppose James Earl Ray called Hoover to inform him how his men kept obscuring his line of sight?
I'll tell you this: When considering the long line of public figures who've been assassinated by a deranged individual (including when they offed themselves), I wonder how the deranged always manage to get a copy of the FBI's watch list.
Occam's Razor has had as much to do with a simplicity of assumptions based upon the limit of knowledge at any given time (in the original case, the middle ages) as it has been a reasonable consideration of probabilities. And its political application has been to reduce it to this approximation: Considering alternatives to the official version of things could open a whole
Hence, we extrapolate from:
"The simplest explanation is most likely the correct one."
-To conclude that:
"A more convenient explanation will get us home in time for dinner, and Mom 'll be none the wiser."
And who was this Willy Fro Mockem anyway? Must've been a brilliant mathematician, whose algorithmic way of thought paved the way for twentieth-century reckoning, which led to the programming language with his name, right? I dunno, I can more easily imagine that nerds just dig using names from the past to show that they like to read as well as cypher.
He is credited as being a physicist, however, like Newton. But the latter, who in spite of being a proponent of a razor-like mental approach, did not find the best explanation for an apple falling to the ground to be: "Well, the ground is down there, duh."
If you're thinking that I've just taken Occam's Razor to an idiotic extreme, then touché.
The fact that William from Ockham was a Franciscan theologian, philosopher, and meta-physicist, who found himself at odds with the Pope, sought and received protection from the Holy Roman Emperor in Bavaria, and was rehabilitated a few Papacies down the road certainly doesn't discount his accomplishments as a logician. On the contrary, his radical status in that regard only serves to boost his reputation. But I assert that he has less in common with the current scientific method than does this guy:
Just the kind of person modern science mocks.
But let's forget the most convenient historical figure with whom to credit "the simplest idea" and see if the idea itself helps clarify why things are the way they are:
What is the simplest explanation for the continued existence of the Holy Roman Catholic Church?
Is it that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, fulfilling age-old prophesy and washing away our sins, and that the power of this story anchored faith firmly in this most divine of institutions? Or is it that it's easier to exercise power over prepubescent boys when everybody thinks you're infallible?
Seriously, is the religion pure and magic, or did Rome just take advantage of superstition to advance its dominion?
Or are the Benedicts of the world just misunderstood clowns providing children with joy, when not giving them nightmares?
And the simplest explanation for pederasty in this one, holy, catholic and apostolic church would be?
Is it as these guys say, that it's more of a homo thing?
That's a pretty simple explanation. So is it most likely the correct one? I mean, it couldn't be that when you forbid the expression of sexuality, it might find an even more private outlet, and when you give someone power and authority (and sovereignty and immunity), they might abuse it?
As more egalitarian thinkers in the Church point out, this problem of sexual abuse extends itself to clergy of all denominations. Some will also remind you that the most common occurrences of pedophilia are within the nuclear family.
So it seems to me that the simplest explanation is that if you leave an infinite number of adults with an infinite number of children for a long enough period of time, at least one of them is going to write a Jacobean tragedy.
And therefore the most straightforward interpretation of its having been a recurring theme dioecesis omnivagus involves priests having been alone with boys an awful lot.
But what of the cover-up of these misdeeds? Well, obviously the church would try to hide the fact that priests are buggering alter-boys because it would make the Church look bad if their trusted faithful could not be faithfully trusted.
But does this account for the illogic of repeatedly putting children in harm's way, even after attempts at transferral, rehabilitation, absolution, and reconciliation have time and again returned to bite them in their collective ass-covering, butt-boring behind?
Could less complicated reasoning suggest that someone wants to uphold ritual sex-abuse?
I mean, when the Feds break up a child pornography ring, are accessories after the fact just trying to keep the family from looking like freaks, or is there something happening that is a little more twisted in its simplicity?
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. And if an organization as unpopular and maligned as the Church of Rome can continue to circumvent outside scrutiny, simply imagine what goes on elsewhere where power and authority congregate.
