What is Occam's razor?

Question

I'm asking for a succinct explanation, please, not a link to the Wikipedia article..

Answer 1

William of Ockham was a monk and a logician who is probably more famous for this logical argument than for anything else he did or was.

Basically, the argument goes that you should eliminate any complexity that is not necessary ('shaving it off' so to speak). Most people rephrase this into the maxim, "the simplest solution is usually the true one". It is a sort of way to logically choose between a variety of possible explanations: choose the simplest one that still fits all the facts.

For example, we might imagine that gravity is caused by invisible hamsters which push things around in exactly the way we observe and but otherwise don't interact with normal material in any way. Should we launch a scientific expedition to search for gravity hamsters? Occam's razor would suggest that unless gravity hamsters explain some data about gravity that current theories don't, there's not much point in looking into it. Likewise, if we came up with a hyper-simple theory of gravity that still explained everything just as well, the old one might logically be discarded as well.

Of course, the use of the word 'usually' in there is a trap door in the argument through which all kinds of things can sneak out. So it's more a rule of thumb than anything else.

Answer 2

The first two answers are over-simplifications. I know you asked for "succint" but the often put forward "the simplest is right" is too succint: to the point that it is positively misleading.

Ockham said that you "should not multiply entities beyond necessity". This has an ontological reference, ontology being the study of what exists and does not exist. He came up with it in the Middle Ages when the big debate was between the Realists and the Nominalists (go Nominalists!). The Realists thought that what made a thing a particular type of thing (what makes a man a man) was an "essence" that that thing had. The Nominalists disputed this, they said we just called things names. Ockham argued that us naming things could account for everything that we know about language (now I am oversimplifying!) and that, thus, the "essence" was NOT NECESSARY.

Imagine a lump in your matress. You can feel it, right? So to explain all the sensory perceptions you have you NEED to make reference to the lump. So it exists.

Now say you couldn't feel the lump. Say you couldn't see the lump. Say, no matter how hard you tried to find the lump you couldn't. Its not NECESSARY. Ockham would say the lump doesn't exist: I think both you and I would agree.

Perhaps the most famous, recent, use of the razor was in Relativity Theory. Before Einstein people (ok theoretical physicists) believed there existed an entity called the luminiferous ether in which waves of light were propogated (like sound gets propogated through air). Trouble was they couldn't find it. So Einstein tried to figure out what the world would be like if it didn't exist. And it worked: he could explain it all without the ether. The ether wasn't necessary: and so was dropped.

Now on one level Einstein's theories ARE "simpler" than Newton's - they don't contain absolute space or luminferous ether. That's on the strict Ockham "less things existing" view of simple. On the "can I understand it" view of simple Einstein's are waaay more complicated than Newton's!

Answer 3

With any group of possible answers, the simplest one is probably correct.

Example: WTC Building 7 collapsed later in the day on 9/11. Firemen noted it on fire and damaged, so they evacuated and let it burn and eventually it fell.

Explantion 1: Falling pieces of WTC 1 and 2 fell on it, damaging its sructure and setting it on fire. Between the two types of damage, structural integrity was lost, part of it failed and dragged the rest down in a diagonal cascade.

Explanation 2: Between 1/20/2001 and 9/11/2001, without the building being closed and without the people who worked there noticing, agents of the Bush Administration secreted explosive charges in the structure of WTC 7 and set timers so that, when the supersecret airline hoax was perpetrated, the building would collapse about seven hours after the plane crashes, diverting the sheeple's attention from the horrible economy and setting the stage for the fascist dictatorship.

According to Occam's Razor, which explanation is probably correct?

Answer 4

properly, "the simplest is the main suitable" paraphrasing of Occam's Razor extremely isn't that precise, in my opinion. The axiom, as interperted by using Bertrand Russel, states that in case you will clarify a phenomenon without assuming hypotheticals, then there is not any floor for assuming them. In different words, for 2 or extra factors seen on equivalent floor in words of their ability to describe the stated responses, one can continuously decide first for the reason in terms of the fewest achieveable form of reasons, aspects, or variables. while/if those factors are eradicated, then bypass and picture related to something. in case you do prefer to bypass with the "easiest answer is the main suitable" form of interpretation, i'd quite see it phrased "the simplest answer is, all else being equivalent, the main probable". i'd use "probable" rather of "maximum suitable". This captures the uncomplicated sentiment and ability that the reason being tentative and desires to be shown. once you're saying "the main suitable", it ability that the reason being absolute and no further attention is due. you do no longer prefer to grant that impact, it is not any longer very medical :) So, in terms of world warming, one need no longer bypass any farther than naming better CO2 emissions by way of fact the same old clarification, this is fairly common placed that way. even with the undeniable fact that, in worldwide warming as in the different thought in technological awareness, the extra you learn it, the extra complexity you show. this would not recommend Occam's razor stops utilising, by way of fact Occam's razor is meant to slice away the hypotheticals, no longer the honestly information and thought in keeping with that information.

Answer 5

Occam's razor basically states that in a situation, the best solution to a problem tends to the easiest solution.

Answer 6

Most often used as in debates as a reason to not believe in God by atheists.

Occam's razor states that the simplest explanation is often the right one. It is often used as a foil to "Pascal's Wager"

Pascal said that if we have the slightest doubt about the existence of God, it is better to live as if he did exist, so that on judgment day, we would be safe.

Answer 7

It's a theory that states that sometimes the simplest solution is the correct one.