Question about Occam's Razor, how does one define simplest?

Question

For example, The creationists feel that their answer is simpler than the answers provided by scientists, either side here could invoke Occam's Razor. How is this paradox resolved? Does it rely on opinions of what simplest means, or is there a subjective way to define simplest?

This i more of a philosophy question but that section is lame.

Elmer R: That was a very good summary of the theistic pov but it doesn't actually address my question at all.

yes I did mean objective, thanks for pointing that out.

Answer 1

(I think you meant objective, but never mind that.)

There's a problem with Creationists invoking Occam's Razor. Their answer relies on too many admitted unknowns.
Let's say that I ask you how water freezes into ice crystals. You would, if you were scientifically inclined, have to go into a discussion of atoms and molecules and such. It would sound rather complex. But what if I told you that the Thrakor form ice into water. You might ask what the Thrakor are, where they come from, how they do what they do, what they are made out of themselves, how we can detect them, and why they do this. If the answer is "It's a mystery, we are not to know, it takes faith and can't be shown by objective evidence" then I haven't even given you an answer- I've raised far more questions than I've answered. So in order to invoke Occam's Shaving Device you'd have to show me that the two answers EQUALLY WELL explain the results we see. Since we don't know what god is, how he does what he does, why he does what he does, and have to invoke miracles to explain away various parts of the story that don't make sense given the laws of nature, Creationism is neither simpler nor an equally good explanation.

Answer 2

The original definition of Occam's razor is "don't multiply entities unnecessarily". Granted you can often simplify this as "Take the simplest solution". But it's more about "If you can explain something without bringing additional concepts into the picture, then do so."

For example, I could leave a $50 bill on my front porch overnight, come back and not find it in the morning, and claim that it was eaten by pixies.. But this would just beg the questions of what these pixies look like, where you can find them during the day, why they eat money, etc. I can't disprove that it didn't happen that way, but I can get much more reasonable explanations without having to introduce the concept of pixies (my apartment neighbor came home later and took it, or it blew away to some other place on the property, etc.).

SImilarly, saying "everything we see today was created by a big invisible man" is needless introducing an entity (deity). More importantly, you learn absolutely nothing about the world when you say "a big invisible man did it". On the other hand, biology and cosmology DO answer other questions about the world and can explain where certain things come from. "Evolution" (just to stick to biology here) is not a random entity that's being brought into the picture. It's a model based on certain FACTS we do see (the imperfection of DNA replication, observations in geology, etc.)

Answer 3

the least puzzling rationalization is to not insert some thing that can't not be empirically pronounced or examined, some thing that has no discernible effect on the organic worldwide. Occams razor will do away with the supernatural for the organic. "Occam's razor is the theory that urges one to make a call from between competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions...." Any declare for the supernatural is an assumption, not testable info.

Answer 4

I believe you mean objective way to define simplest. The problem is that in this particular situation, all definitions of simple are subjective, meaning they rely on the opinions of the person invoking Occam's Razor.

Creationists are perfectly valid in saying that their view draws on the least number of assumptions and hypotheses, which makes it the simplest explanation. They generally cite the Bible as their source.

Evolutionists are also perfectly valid in saying that their view draws on the least number of assumptions and hypotheses, making it the simplest explanation. They cite science as their source.

In this particular case, I do think that using Occam's Razor must favor evolution. The reason for that is that there is solid scientific evidence pointing to the Earth being millions of years old. We have fossil records, skeletons, and examples of evolution at work which are facts. Creationism, on the other hand, requires a healthy dose of faith. Faith is, by definition, belief in something which can neither be proven nor observed. To my mind, that introduces more hypotheses and assumptions, which makes it less likely in the context of Occam and his idea.

I have often wished that he and evolution theory had co-existed, so he could address the issue himself. Being a religious man, I am sure he would have done so.

I cannot give you a simple answer, though I wish I could. I can only tell you two things which people have related to me.

The first is one that a professor mentioned to us in a class in college. We were discussing Occam's Razor and logic, and he said, "If you hear hoofbeats, think horses instead of zebras, UNLESS you happen to be standing near a watering hole in Africa, and there are large predators, as well as large herds of game animals around." His point is that you have to use logic and common sense, as well, when reducing something to its simplest.

The other is something said to me by my nephew. He happens to be very religious, but his take on the whole thing is this. People call it the "theory" of evolution. There is too much scientific data for it to still be called a theory, in his opinion (an opinion I happen to share). As such, evolution is what should be taught in science classes, as there is hard science to back it up. What should be called a theory is creationism. He says that it has no scientifc basis, and no factual data to back it up, and as such, it should not be taught in a science classroom--it should be taught in philosophy classes, as it is more appropriate in that setting.

Both observations seem very wise and logical to me. They are both, in my opinion, elegantly simple. I don't even need to consider Occam's Razor to reach my conclusion.

Answer 5

To the questioner AND thatguyjoe:

There's an entire process of inductive thinking that coincides with Occam's Razor. It doesn't exactly exist on its own. There is a logical process, and Occam's Razor serves as a step in that process. If you want specifics, I can provide them. But I just thought I'd clarify.

Answer 6

I had always thought that OR boiled down to the most likely or most logical. I may have been mixing it up with a Sherlock Holmes quote or something......

When I looked it up the other day, all defs. used the word "simplest."

I think that word is misleading. It's true that the world being created in 7 days is the simplest in that it takes the least amount of time and uses less words. But it's certainly the most unlikely.

I'm probably not saying this very well. Hopefully someone else will.

EDIT: Yup, plenty of smart people said it wayyy better than I did. Thank god! Oh.....er.....Thank goodness!

Answer 7

I don't think that Occam's Razor applies in theology. Religion is not logical. Therefore simplicity becomes irrelevant. Scientific thinking is different because it requires proof. Occam's razor would give Newton the reason when clearly Einstein was closer to the truth. . . Food for thought.

Answer 8

Hmm good question. I've always viewed simplest as meaning the most logical. Not necessarily the quickest, or easiest, or the most simple to comprehend.. but the one that makes sense.

As an atheist, I think that the simplest (most logical) answer to something like the birth of our universe does not include an intelligent designer or creator. I can understand though how "simplest", if used to mean quickest, easiest, could lead people to think that ID/ creationism is the answer.

Answer 9

"Simplest" is actually (ironically) an oversimplification. The shortest sentence does not win.

A better explanation is that Occam's Razor says that whichever explanation requires a minimum suspension of disbelief, or a minimum reversal of understood standards of the universe, is probably the right one.

So for example, if my car's brakes fail at 70,000 miles or whatever, occam's razor says it's because they were used to their capacity. That is a "simpler" explanation than a unicorn fiddling with my brakes.

Answer 10

Simplest in relation to Occam's Razor is the explanation that has the least unresolved and unexplained variables.

Theists tend to think "simple" means the "fewest words used".