I personally think Occam’s razor is more about describing what you know. If two theories are equally good in their explanatory value, but one has some extra bells and whistles added on, you have to ask what basis you have for deciding to prefer the bells and whistles over the no bells and whistles version.
Since both theories are in fact equally good in their predictions, you have no grounds for preferring one over the other. You are in fact ignorant of which theory is the correct one. However, the simplest one is the one that comes closest to describing the state of your knowledge. The more complicated ones add extra bits that can only really be described as speculations, not knowledge at all, because all the extra bits of ‘information’ in that theory are not based on any data at all.
Perhaps a more complicated theory is true? Perhaps. But which one of the many many many more complicated theories should you pick? You have no evidence on which to make this choice.
Equally, one shouldn’t be too doctrinaire about it. We don’t know the simplest explanation is correct—we simply know it’s the best way of describing what we know so far. If there are several similar theories of almost equal explanatory weight, there are grounds for reasonable agnosticism even if there is one that’s a little ‘lighter’ than the others.
I personally think Occam’s razor is more about describing what you know. If two theories are equally good in their explanatory value, but one has some extra bells and whistles added on, you have to ask what basis you have for deciding to prefer the bells and whistles over the no bells and whistles version.
Since both theories are in fact equally good in their predictions, you have no grounds for preferring one over the other. You are in fact ignorant of which theory is the correct one. However, the simplest one is the one that comes closest to describing the state of your knowledge. The more complicated ones add extra bits that can only really be described as speculations, not knowledge at all, because all the extra bits of ‘information’ in that theory are not based on any data at all.
Perhaps a more complicated theory is true? Perhaps. But which one of the many many many more complicated theories should you pick? You have no evidence on which to make this choice.
Equally, one shouldn’t be too doctrinaire about it. We don’t know the simplest explanation is correct—we simply know it’s the best way of describing what we know so far. If there are several similar theories of almost equal explanatory weight, there are grounds for reasonable agnosticism even if there is one that’s a little ‘lighter’ than the others.