Occam's Razor v. Logic

[Captain Conservative]

In trying to predict the behavior of the two sides, it might be useful to look at the situation from two perspectives. On one hand you have Occam's Razor. For those unfamilar, the concept is this: To explain a situation, the simplest explanation is almost always the more likely.

From this perspective, in my opinion, the simplest explaination is that Mssrs. Bettman and Goodenow are involved in a ego based stalemate. I base this statement on previous behavior observed over the past 7 months. The reality outcome of is a drastically smaller league, less money for all involved and a very slow comeback if one happens at all.


From the perspective of logic, I would define the situation thusly: As it stands, the NHL has a presence in 30 north american markets. There is potential for growth if the NHL and NHLPA collude to produce an outcome which casts the players in a favorable light, since the average fan will identify more with the players than with the owners. The logical solution would be for the PA to cede ground on the most public of the issues surrounding the CBA, which is the salary cap. The PA should appear to agree to a 42.5 mil cap at the very latest possible moment, because they just want to start playing again, money be damned. On the less publicised issues, the NHL will give over completely to the PA. The reality of this outcome is the potential for growth, possibly great growth, and a ~24-28 game season this year.


Which perspective do you think is closer to the truth? Personally, after thinking it over, I would pick the latter.

Click to read more...

 

[mudcrutch79]

I pick the latter as well. From a legal perspective, the outcomes are not at all appealing for either side, as Bettman and Goodenow know as well. I'm not sure it goes down like you think, but there will be a settlement.

The problem with the ego idea is that each of these guys works for other people. If I'm Bettman's employer, and I get a whiff of the possibility that his ego is preventing a deal, I'm on him like stink on a monkey. Same with Bettman and the players, although they may be less perceptive, but they have agents to be fractious for them.

Those letters, Bettman's in particular, suggest a part who's come somewhat unhinged though. Here's hoping he gets up, announces the season is on, and then Daly hits him over the head with a chair and assumes the throne.

 

[Captain Conservative]

I pick the latter as well. From a legal perspective, the outcomes are not at all appealing for either side, as Bettman and Goodenow know as well. I'm not sure it goes down like you think, but there will be a settlement.

The problem with the ego idea is that each of these guys works for other people. If I'm Bettman's employer, and I get a whiff of the possibility that his ego is preventing a deal, I'm on him like stink on a monkey. Same with Bettman and the players, although they may be less perceptive, but they have agents to be fractious for them.

Those letters, Bettman's in particular, suggest a part who's come somewhat unhinged though. Here's hoping he gets up, announces the season is on, and then Daly hits him over the head with a chair and assumes the throne.

The letters work into the logic perspective. They cast even more of a hero sheen on the players for being the proverbial "bigger man". John Q. Public gains affection for the players selflessness and pours money into the league.

You bring up a good point by mentioning the employers/players. Hopefully they would see the wider picture that Bettman/Goodenow's emotions would blind. Unfortunately, this emotional blindness might extend very far indeed. We shall see.

 

[arnie]

In trying to predict the behavior of the two sides, it might be useful to look at the situation from two perspectives. On one hand you have Occam's Razor. For those unfamilar, the concept is this: To explain a situation, the simplest explanation is almost always the more likely.

From this perspective, in my opinion, the simplest explaination is that Mssrs. Bettman and Goodenow are involved in a ego based stalemate. I base this statement on previous behavior observed over the past 7 months. The reality outcome of is a drastically smaller league, less money for all involved and a very slow comeback if one happens at all.


From the perspective of logic, I would define the situation thusly: As it stands, the NHL has a presence in 30 north american markets. There is potential for growth if the NHL and NHLPA collude to produce an outcome which casts the players in a favorable light, since the average fan will identify more with the players than with the owners. The logical solution would be for the PA to cede ground on the most public of the issues surrounding the CBA, which is the salary cap. The PA should appear to agree to a 42.5 mil cap at the very latest possible moment, because they just want to start playing again, money be damned. On the less publicised issues, the NHL will give over completely to the PA. The reality of this outcome is the potential for growth, possibly great growth, and a ~24-28 game season this year.


Which perspective do you think is closer to the truth? Personally, after thinking it over, I would pick the latter.

You spelled "Occam" wrong. It's actually "Ockham," as in William of Ockham, the man who said it. Common mistake.

 

[Captain Conservative]

You spelled "Occam" wrong. It's actually "Ockham," as in William of Ockham, the man who said it. Common mistake.

Actually, both spellings are accepted. Occams is the more common usage though.


http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html

 

[arnie]

Actually, both spellings are accepted. Occams is the more common usage though.


http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html

Accepterd by whom? Ockham is correct and Occam is wrong.

BTW, his exact quite was: "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem."

 

[broman]

Accepterd by whom? Ockham is correct and Occam is wrong.

BTW, his exact quite was: "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem."

Errm... while the medieval name for Ockham, Surrey is ambiguous and open for debate, the razor is universally known as Occam's. The likes of OED and The Economist will spell it with Occam first without slightest remorse. You may disagree if you like but the rest of the world will not be bothered.

 

[BLONG7]

you guys are like Bob and Gary, arguing over the spelling of a word???

 

[SENSible1*]

The priciple is important, the spelling...not so much.

 

[Captain Conservative]

Accepterd by whom? Ockham is correct and Occam is wrong.

BTW, his exact quite was: "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem."

I'd be interesting in hearing your thoughts on Occams v. Logic in the parameters I laid out.



I'm not into semantics.

 

[teme]

In trying to predict the behavior of the two sides, it might be useful to look at the situation from two perspectives. On one hand you have Occam's Razor. For those unfamilar, the concept is this: To explain a situation, the simplest explanation is almost always the more likely.

From this perspective, in my opinion, the simplest explaination is that Mssrs. Bettman and Goodenow are involved in a ego based stalemate. I base this statement on previous behavior observed over the past 7 months. The reality outcome of is a drastically smaller league, less money for all involved and a very slow comeback if one happens at all.

As a logic nazi I must say that Occam's razor means that you should not presume more than is necessary to come up with a satisfactory explanation, or "Thou shall not multiply enthities beyond necessity." Necessity being rather vague, it is actually quite an useless as anything more than a good rule of thumb (you can't prove anything with Occam's razor.) Still, in this case the facts are that NHL wants to pay N dollars in salary and NHLPA wants N+X, and that being a perfectly reasonable explanation I don't see the need to suppose anything including "ego based stalemate" in addition to that.

From the perspective of logic, I would define the situation thusly: As it stands, the NHL has a presence in 30 north american markets. There is potential for growth if the NHL and NHLPA collude to produce an outcome which casts the players in a favorable light, since the average fan will identify more with the players than with the owners. The logical solution would be for the PA to cede ground on the most public of the issues surrounding the CBA, which is the salary cap. The PA should appear to agree to a 42.5 mil cap at the very latest possible moment, because they just want to start playing again, money be damned. On the less publicised issues, the NHL will give over completely to the PA. The reality of this outcome is the potential for growth, possibly great growth, and a ~24-28 game season this year.

From PoV of the interest parties, to have a season would be beneficial, all other things being equal. However all other things are not equal in this case, namely owner's expenses and player's income, so it doesn't follow that any compromise is in the interest of both parties.

I fully expect any agreement, if and when it is reached, to be presented as a selfless sacrafice by both parties for the love of hockey.

 

[teme]

Accepterd by whom? Ockham is correct and Occam is wrong.

Occam is Latin and Ockham English I believe.