On Ockham's Razor
Maybe I misunderstand the principle -- but this in part is because of its (mis)use -- but I am not a fan of Ockham's razor.
Ockham's razor is a principle used in judging theories in which "complications" that make no difference in the prediction-power of the theory are "cut away" (as if by a razor).
It is often stated as a sort of rule: "The simplest of equally possible solutions is the best."
But the problem is, it is not a rule; it is a suggestion. I think that a very lot of people forget that. And my guess (hope) is that this was not what Mr. Ockham had in mind when he came up with the idea.
First of all, in my experience, the simplest explanation is not always correct.
Secondly, we rarely ever know all of the questions to ask, let alone all the "possible" answers to a problem. How, then, are we to know if two solutions are equally possible?
Thirdly, isn't simplicity subjective?
Thus, I find the argument worthless when it is stated as I did above.
Can anyone make the principle less stupid for me? I'd be much obliged.
Ockham's razor is a principle used in judging theories in which "complications" that make no difference in the prediction-power of the theory are "cut away" (as if by a razor).
It is often stated as a sort of rule: "The simplest of equally possible solutions is the best."
But the problem is, it is not a rule; it is a suggestion. I think that a very lot of people forget that. And my guess (hope) is that this was not what Mr. Ockham had in mind when he came up with the idea.
First of all, in my experience, the simplest explanation is not always correct.
Secondly, we rarely ever know all of the questions to ask, let alone all the "possible" answers to a problem. How, then, are we to know if two solutions are equally possible?
Thirdly, isn't simplicity subjective?
Thus, I find the argument worthless when it is stated as I did above.
Can anyone make the principle less stupid for me? I'd be much obliged.