Isn't Occam's razor going to fail, from time to time?

Question

If we continually choose the most likely answer, won't we eventually choose the wrong answer?

Answer 1

It is simply showing us the most likely place to start any search.

It was never intended to restrict.

Love and blessings Don

Answer 2

Of course, the simplest explanation we have is not always correct.

We may discover a simpler explanation later or an unlikely situation (such as a dog eating your homework). may happen occasionally.

Ockham didn't say the simplest answer is always correct, but if you don't know the answer the simplest one you have is more likely to be the best guess.

Murphy's Law can also be interpreted in a similar way. When we say "everything that can go wrong will go wrong" we may mean that given enough time even the most unlikely disasters will eventually happen.

Answer 3

Yes,that is what did in the positivist, empiricist and operationist schools of philosophy. and what is killing off the Analytical Philosophy right now. The attempt by philosophers to create a"objective scientific" philosophy based on pure observation thinking that observation is the most economic method.free of fancy theoretical abstractions. However all these schools failed because it became clear pure observation is incomplete method for science .Simply because theory and observations are interwoven and many problems in physics Biology and Mathematics do not lend themselves to simple observational proofs. . For example Arthur C. Danto in his book What Philosohy Is chornicles the rise and fall of the positivist( little p as in past tense.)) Who were going strong until they discovered their were no Observation proofs for Logic. Scientist just dumped Positivism rather that give up one of their greatest tools. But then isn't that Occam Razor too?

Answer 4

Yes, but you've slightly mis-summarised Occam's razor.

The principle that, faced with two *adequate* explanations of a situation, phenomenon, effect... one should prefer that which postulates fewer entities or levels of complexity is only a reasonable postion, not a certainty.

Note: a simple explanation that doesn't quite cover all the facts falls before it gets as far as an Occam inspection.

Erwin Schrödinger knew well the complexity he was facing, but he couldn't get the simpler answers to work.
"Had I known that we were not going to get rid of this damned quantum jumping, I never would have involved myself in this business!"

But to postulate little demons pushing the components of atoms around to make the experimental results fit, now that would be an entity too far.

Answer 5

I think its meant for situations where we don't KNOW which answer is right.

Its meant for pragmatic purposes. If we don't know the right answer, and have no way of knowing it, we may as well choose the most simple answer.

We MIGHT choose the wrong answer, but does it matter? What will be the consequences?

Answer 6

I would say in general it is pretty reliable but sometimes the simple answer is definatly the wrong one.

Answer 7

well, it will definitely need sharpening from time to time. whether it is used or not.

Answer 8

No - it just cuts all the bo****ks