Occam's Razor

                                                 

Occam's Razor is an extremely important philosophic principle linked to philosopher and theologian William of Ockham. Put simply, it states: "Of competing theories, that which provides the simplest explanation for something should be preferred. A similar formula was already made by Aristotle (384-322 BC) and Ptolemy (circa AD 100-AD 170) and reiterated by Isaac Newton (1642-1727). It is also known as the law of parsimony. Parsimony means extremely thrifty or careful with resources.

So, the simplest explanation for anything is most likely correct, while the more complex an explana-tion, the reverse is true: the less and less likely to be correct. For example, a tree fell down. You could logically conclude that the wind knocked it down. Or believe a meteorite knocked it down, which hit another meteorite, obliterating evidence of both meteorites. Occam's Razor eliminates the convoluted second idea by precisely cutting it away like a sharp razor, leaving logical reasoning intact. In fact, you should *always* seek the easiest explanation IF all relevant data aligns with that conclusion.  

For example, one light in your house is off that you want on. First thing, flip its switch. If that works, stop there. If not, step two: check if its cord became unplugged. If so and you re-plug it and it lights, stop there. If not, step three: check the lightbulb to see if it is burned out. If so and you change the bulb and it lights, stop there. If not, step four: check for a tripped circuit breaker or blown fuse.  If so and you fixed it, stop there. If not, call an electrician. 

Occam's razor should always be on the horizon, since it is a law (of parsimony, as stated before). So, there is no way to apply it wrong when it is called for.  I do warn that one can mistakenly *think* they are applying Occam's razor and get the wrong answer.  For example, someone sees the doctor with symptoms similar to the flu. The doctor assumes they have the flu, yet they have something more serious. So, the patient's other complaints are ignored as overactive imagination, and they suffer.   

However, if you never make unwarranted assumptions, never jump to hasty conclusions, and the simplest conclusion, after careful research and fitting together all available data, satisfies all criteria, which you then presume upon, if you then apply this principle, it is wise.  Not doing so is foolish.  Complexity is not the wrong way, as long as it is complex as it needs be and no more. 

WHY people don't apply it: Outside of being unaware of this principle, people want to escape the truth. For example, a single man who can never find a woman may conclude that numerous women out there want him, they are all just star-crossed lovers. He feels free to believe so since you cannot disprove it through conventional means. So, instead of knowing that women want nothing to do with him, he feels better for quite a while but wastes forty years chasing false hope. 

Now twenty-nine bodies were found buried on the small property that John Wayne Gacy lived on near Chicago. Mr. Gacy came up with numerous explanations as to why he was never responsible, including self-defense, some having fatal accidents, others committing suicide, and some being murdered and buried by others who had keys to his house and when he was not at home.  He even wrote a book titled A Question of Doubt.  Was John Gacy possibly innocent? Yes! But the law thought it too dangerous not to apply Occam's Razor in this case. 

In fact, you could never disprove anyone on anything if you allow them to add an extra postulate whenever they see fit.  So, if someone is in a logical bind because their construct does not make sense due to inconsistencies or whatnot, they can add an additional device to escape it. And if you also undermine that, they introduce another contrivance to explain that one, ad infinitum, making you go down endless rabbit trails.  But going on such an extreme tangent is rare.

That is because people realize that society widely and/or strongly disapproves of ignoring obvious empirical evidence, knowing that doing so is fallacious. Yet such scenarios are extremely common when dealing with believing or disbelieving various religious positions. That is because religion and spirituality necessarily fall outside the realm of concrete scientific data. So, the vast majority think they can ignore Occam's Razor and other rules of logic on the pretense of being spiritual. Or reject religion on the pretense of being rational. So, never ever accept anything pertaining to religion that is illogical. 

Advocates of Occam's Razor often say that it is a general rule of thumb, not a law. That is very mislead-ing and sounds like an excuse to escape it whenever they deem it beneficial.  Instead, here is when you should *not* use it:  1) If an answer, though very complicated and multiplex, is known to be true beyond a reasonable doubt due to a preponderance of evidence. 2) If two or more competing theories are equally plausible due to equal complexity and likelihood. 3) If you lack enough information about any of the competing theories about something to draw an honest conclusion.  

Otherwise, you should always use this LAW of parsimony. But always realize that even if you apply it correctly, you can come up with the wrong conclusion. That is because nobody knows it all, and as an axiom, we never know what we do not know.  But in the long run, not applying it will statistically be far worse and lead to dead-ass rubbish. So, apply this wisdom.