Occam’s razor actually suggest that entities are not to be multiplied without necessity.
Unfortunately, most people happily bastardize Occam’s Razor, abusing it to suggest the simpler explanation is usually the better one.
First off, define simple. Simple how? Can you objectively define simplicity? (It’s not easily done.) Second, explanations must fit the facts. Third, this is a heuristic-based argument, not a logical proof of something. (This same argument was used against Boltzman and his idea of the atom, but Boltzman was right.) Fourth, what does “usually” mean anyway? Define that objectively. Black swans events are seemingly impossible, yet they happen much more regularly than people imagine (because they are based on power laws/fractal statistics, not the Bell Curve reality we often think in terms of where the past gives us some sense of what to expect).
Consequently, I don’t consider an offhand mention of Occam’s razor as a compelling argument. I would stop shaking your head and reconsider what it is you think you know.
shanerg is right, Occam’s razor is not “The simplest answer is usually the right one.” It is, “do not suggest entities for which there are no need”.
That is a common misrepresentation of Occam’s razor, and it is extremely vague and I think it shouldn’t be used, it has too many hidden assumptions. Now I do agree with everything that was written in the article, but everything in the article was the underlying explanation for why Occam’s razor is true, which simply put, has to do with statistics. I was disappointed though, that this article that was about Occam’s razor, didn’t actually have Occam’s razor in it.
I’m sure we could have a fruitful discussion about the proper form of Occam’s Razor, generally speaking it is taken slightly differently than the precise wording attributed to William of Occam.
However, shanerg’s post includes several questions answered explicitly and prominently in the post to which ey is responding. Based on this, I expected that a lengthy philosophical response would be wasted.
Occam’s razor actually suggest that entities are not to be multiplied without necessity.
Unfortunately, most people happily bastardize Occam’s Razor, abusing it to suggest the simpler explanation is usually the better one.
First off, define simple. Simple how? Can you objectively define simplicity? (It’s not easily done.) Second, explanations must fit the facts. Third, this is a heuristic-based argument, not a logical proof of something. (This same argument was used against Boltzman and his idea of the atom, but Boltzman was right.) Fourth, what does “usually” mean anyway? Define that objectively. Black swans events are seemingly impossible, yet they happen much more regularly than people imagine (because they are based on power laws/fractal statistics, not the Bell Curve reality we often think in terms of where the past gives us some sense of what to expect).
Consequently, I don’t consider an offhand mention of Occam’s razor as a compelling argument. I would stop shaking your head and reconsider what it is you think you know.
Several of these points are explicitly addressed in the article.
shanerg is right, Occam’s razor is not “The simplest answer is usually the right one.” It is, “do not suggest entities for which there are no need”.
That is a common misrepresentation of Occam’s razor, and it is extremely vague and I think it shouldn’t be used, it has too many hidden assumptions. Now I do agree with everything that was written in the article, but everything in the article was the underlying explanation for why Occam’s razor is true, which simply put, has to do with statistics. I was disappointed though, that this article that was about Occam’s razor, didn’t actually have Occam’s razor in it.
I’m sure we could have a fruitful discussion about the proper form of Occam’s Razor, generally speaking it is taken slightly differently than the precise wording attributed to William of Occam.
However, shanerg’s post includes several questions answered explicitly and prominently in the post to which ey is responding. Based on this, I expected that a lengthy philosophical response would be wasted.