07-05-2018, 07:48 PM
https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~pedrod/...dmkd99.pdf
"Occam's razor is often considered one of the fundamental tenets of modern science. In its original form, it states that "Nunquam ponenda est pluralitas sin necesitate," which, approximately translated, means "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity" (Tornay, 1938). It was formulated by William of Occam in the late Middle Ages as a criticism of scholastic philosophy, whose theories grew ever more elaborate without any corresponding improvement in predictive power. Today it is often invoked by learning theorists and KDD practitioners as a justification for preferring simpler models over more complex ones."
I do not mean to endorse Occam's Razor for evaluating JFK evidence. If one applied the first definition above, then the "lone gunman" theory is by far the simplest, so Occam would convict LHO. By the second definition, if your theory includes the guilt of the CIA and Military Intelligence, then you would not multiply entities by adding the Mossad, British Intelligence or the Mafia. Both of these conclusions are, in my opinion, useless in the JFK analysis.
Rather, my suggestion is that "if someone proposes a theory which explains and event, and no one else proposes any other theory (or a preposterous theory), then you should accept the proposed theory, not as conclusively proven, but rather only as the working hypothesis." Such a working hypothesis can be used as a door which the researcher can open which will likely lead to further valuable information and even proof."
Dr. Caufield explains Oswald's presence in the voter registration line in Clinton, LA. There is no other good explanation. So you go forward with Dr. Caufield's theory.
Likewise, only Judyth Vary Baker has suggested why Oswald was at the Jackson Louisiana Mental Hospital for an interview. I have seen no other good explanation. So I go forward with the theory of Judyth Vary Baker. And so on.
The following is a list of logical tools that I developed in my publication to analyze JFK evidence and theory:
1: Motive, means and opportunity.
2: When you have eliminated the impossible, you have the answer.
3: If you are judging a theory which offers an explanation for otherwise unexplained
facts, you should believe it.
4: Some of the first information to come out can sometimes be the best information.
5: When a key witness makes a statement that sounds totally unbelievable, it
almost always turns out to be true in the end.
6 There are no impossible coincidences.
7: If a career, salaried member of the espionage community makes a statement,
he is very possibly lying. (That's his talent and his job).
8: There may be some evidence which is covered up by law enforcement out
of sheer embarrassment and nothing more.
9: Cui Bono? This is Latin for "Who Benefits."
10. Follow the money.
James Lateer
"Occam's razor is often considered one of the fundamental tenets of modern science. In its original form, it states that "Nunquam ponenda est pluralitas sin necesitate," which, approximately translated, means "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity" (Tornay, 1938). It was formulated by William of Occam in the late Middle Ages as a criticism of scholastic philosophy, whose theories grew ever more elaborate without any corresponding improvement in predictive power. Today it is often invoked by learning theorists and KDD practitioners as a justification for preferring simpler models over more complex ones."
I do not mean to endorse Occam's Razor for evaluating JFK evidence. If one applied the first definition above, then the "lone gunman" theory is by far the simplest, so Occam would convict LHO. By the second definition, if your theory includes the guilt of the CIA and Military Intelligence, then you would not multiply entities by adding the Mossad, British Intelligence or the Mafia. Both of these conclusions are, in my opinion, useless in the JFK analysis.
Rather, my suggestion is that "if someone proposes a theory which explains and event, and no one else proposes any other theory (or a preposterous theory), then you should accept the proposed theory, not as conclusively proven, but rather only as the working hypothesis." Such a working hypothesis can be used as a door which the researcher can open which will likely lead to further valuable information and even proof."
Dr. Caufield explains Oswald's presence in the voter registration line in Clinton, LA. There is no other good explanation. So you go forward with Dr. Caufield's theory.
Likewise, only Judyth Vary Baker has suggested why Oswald was at the Jackson Louisiana Mental Hospital for an interview. I have seen no other good explanation. So I go forward with the theory of Judyth Vary Baker. And so on.
The following is a list of logical tools that I developed in my publication to analyze JFK evidence and theory:
1: Motive, means and opportunity.
2: When you have eliminated the impossible, you have the answer.
3: If you are judging a theory which offers an explanation for otherwise unexplained
facts, you should believe it.
4: Some of the first information to come out can sometimes be the best information.
5: When a key witness makes a statement that sounds totally unbelievable, it
almost always turns out to be true in the end.
6 There are no impossible coincidences.
7: If a career, salaried member of the espionage community makes a statement,
he is very possibly lying. (That's his talent and his job).
8: There may be some evidence which is covered up by law enforcement out
of sheer embarrassment and nothing more.
9: Cui Bono? This is Latin for "Who Benefits."
10. Follow the money.
James Lateer