Does anyone know an example of a well-documented violation of Occam's razor?

Question

Occam's razor states that the simpler explanation tends to be correct. Is this merely heuristic or is there a metaphysical reason why it works so well in science?

Famous examples include Newton's explanation of planetary motion, the tides, and the fall of an apple by a single sweeping hypothesis, Darwin's explanation of the rich variety of life as descendents from a single common ancestor, and Copernicus' view that planets orbit the sun in roughly circular orbits.

Sometimes, ideas that violate Occam are the products of wishful thinking. With extreme vanity, man once believed all planets and the sun orbited the earth and invented many specious arguments to explain "retrograde" planetary motion.
The Biblical view that god created millions of species and their habitats separately flatters man's ego as being all for us, the lords over this extremely special creation.

"Tautological nihilism" attempts to explain the world without invoking any hypotheses, principles or substances.

If it explains the origin of the world as well as any other, should it be given preference by Occam? Is it reasonable to suppose that someday people will again conquer their vanity and accept such an unflattering view of man and nature as "zero sum nihilism" leaves us with? Bonus: no religion, therefore no more religious infighting.

If Occam has no exceptions, is it not rather difficult to argue that it is merely heuristic? Should we not therefore focus on explanations that obey Occam?

The answers so far show that people do not understand the razor. The razor is applied only when two or more testable explanations of the all of the data are possible and only when one is clearly simpler than another.

Copernicus' explanation and the Church's explanation fit the exact same planetary data. The Church's was needlessly complex because it hypothesized retrograde motions and provides no workable mechanism for such, and is thus rejected by the razor.

String theory makes no novel, useful or testable predictions and thus cannot possibly be an exception to Ockham. Its uselessness as a theory is a prime example of what happens in science when the razor is disregarded.

As far as Q.M. goes, give an example where two models accounted for all the data and the more complicated one won out over the simpler one.

The razor is also not applicable to literature. No one can explain Harry Potter's magic, which violates several conservation laws in physics, with the razor.

Sorry, this question is compounding confusion, rather than illuminating anything. When two or more models fit the data, a scientist cannot simply use Occam to test the "simpler" model. That would not eliminate the more complex model. He devises a test that decides between them and often notes the more complex model lost out, in accord with Occam.

No, Occam is not a truth serum. It is a test based on some ambiguous terms like "simpler," "all other things being equal" (when are they ever?), "explanation, " etc.

The statement that Occam is not as applicable to literature as science did not mean to exclude literary criticism, which is not literature. Plots and characters are rarely logical, as people do the strangest things and are illogically and irrationally motivated. Particles in physics may seem strange, but not compared to people. Simple explanations of human behavior like why Iago hated Othello are not the rule in literature and are ridiculed routinely in literary criticism.

Answer 1

Let me start and conclude by correcting the only thing that matters in your questions: Occam's razor.
It does not state that the simpler explanation is usually the true one. It is most frequently interpreted to mean that the simpler explanation should be chosen first in order to test.
Thus, your first hypothesis for testing should be the simplest one to test. There are numerous examples of the simplest explanation not being the answer (All of quantum physics, string theory, entanglement) which does not violate Occams's razor because simpler explanations were tested and failed.

Michael John Weaver, M.S.

Answer 2

Well this seems to hinge on what it means to be simple. God creating the world is potentially simpler than Evolution being correct. Something not existing is simpler than something existing. Hmmm...it seems like we have a paradox here! In actual fact Occam's razor is not logically justifiable and it says that we should choose the simplest explanation only when there is nothing else to choose between them. It is a last port of call. It would not apply to my above examples. There are plenty of considerations to choose between eg. God and evolution other than their complexity/simplicity. Occam's razor has very few applications. I cant think of any.

Answer 3

Your question really does not make sense, considering that Occam's Razor is a tool regarding theory formation and hypothesis testing, not a system of thought or a law in itself.

OR applies so easily in science because the scientific method itself encourages simplicity: test one variable at a time. Thus, the 100-variable theory is pared down to the three or four necessary variables that matter. The rest are discarded.

OR probably works best in mathematics. In that language, every statement has been stripped of all nuance, connotation, and shade of meaning but one. OR probably does not apply well in literature, and not at all in poetry. We'd sound pretty silly talking about Harry Potter, for example, after deciding that wands are irrelevant.

There is a phrase associated with OR, too, that many people tend to ignore: "other things being equal".

"Other things" in this context, would include hard evidence for support of the complicating factors in our reasoning.



Edit: Reply to poster's later comments:

Not only, as you state, do the responses suggest a lack of understanding of OR, and admittedly including my own; but methinks of the questioner's as well.

"The answers so far show that people do not understand the razor. The razor is applied only when two or more testable explanations of the all of the data are possible and only when one is clearly simpler than another."

Not so. The razor is a logical tool, not a truth serum. As psiexploration stated: "It does not state that the simpler explanation is usually the true one. It is most frequently interpreted to mean that the simpler explanation should be chosen first in order to test."

You seem to be saying that OR is a test for truth in itself, and if I have misinterpreted you, please accept my apologies. OR merely is a means to assist hypothesis formation and order of testing.

"The razor is also not applicable to literature."

Wrong for three reasons. First, it applies in literary criticism (analysis, not 'book reviews') and is as applicable to literary theroies as to physics.

Secondly, OR can be used as a check on the author's use of logical plot and character development, and his 'internal consistency (i,e., do the facts on page 10 comport with the conclusion on page 297?).

Thirdly, OR does apply to storylines (just not as easily) if one adopts a healthy willing suspension of disbelief -- a practical application of one of ORs oft-forgotten but essential tenets: "Other things being equal."

"Other things" in this context means playing a game of 'what if' or 'suppose that' Harry's world were real. Besides, do you know that it isn't? We're THAT good at hiding, after all.

"No one can explain Harry Potter's magic, which violates several conservation laws in physics, with the razor."

No one can explain ANYTHING with the razor. One uses OR to whittle away, to sort, to categorize and to prioritize; and the explanations are provided by other means.




Second Edit:

Again, you seem to be of the opinion that OR is a real phenomena. It is not. It is a purely human logical construct. OR was developed as a result of observing the nature of scientific knowledge already understood. It's application lies in the decision of how best to study scientific theory currently under observation. OR can be applied to almost any field of human endeavor, including the arts, but it "fits" science best.

Answer 4

To answer your question in a meaningful way a person would have to dredge through the countless times the razor's been applied by scientists and logicians in history, based on their contemporary context knowledge-base.

Then he'd have to sift through and discover examples of the razor breaking under the on-slaught more thorough knowledge.

Your premise is certainly weak, almost certainly flawed. But it isn't worth the trouble of ferreting out historical proofs to dislodge your complacency.

No reason anyone should go to any trouble to change your choices. You're the only one with an investment in them.

Answer 5

Simple reason why it works. How much simpler than the Primeval Atom can you get? All things started from one exploding atom into the vast complexities of today. Even the Fundy view states that in the beginning there was nothing. In the technological world you might find a reverse example.