When giving explanatory reasons for something, don't posit more than is necessary. Why posit pluralities unnecessarily? Or, as most would put it today, don't make any more assumptions than you have to. We can posit the ether to explain action at a distance, but we don't need ether to explain it, so why assume an ethereal ether? Oliver W. Holmes and Jerome Frank might be said to have applied Occam's razor in arguing that there is no such thing as "the Law.
To confuse matters, these eminent jurists called their view legal realism , instead of legal nominalism. So much for simplifying matters. Because Occam's razor is sometimes called the principle of simplicity some creationists have argued that Occam's razor can be used to support creationism over evolution.
After all, having God create everything is much simpler than evolution, which is a very complex mechanism. But Occam's razor does not say that the more simple a hypothesis, the better.
MORE ON OCCAM’S RAZOR
If it did, Occam's would be dull razor for a dim populace indeed. Some have even found a use for Occam's razor to justify budget cuts , arguing that "what can be done with less is done in vain with more. The original principle seems to have been invoked within the context of a belief in the notion that perfection is simplicity itself. This seems to be a metaphysical bias which we share with the medievals and the ancient Greeks. For, like them, most of our disputes are not about this principle but about what counts as necessary. To the materialist, dualists multiply pluralities unnecessarily.
To the dualist, positing a mind as well as a body, is necessary. To atheists, positing a god and a supernatural realm is to posit pluralities unnecessarily. To the theist, positing a god is necessary.
Occam’s Razor: The simplest solution is always the best
And so on. To von Daniken, perhaps, the facts make it necessary to posit extraterrestrials. To others, these aliens are unnecessary pluralities. In the end, maybe Occam's razor says little more than that for atheists any god is unnecessary but for theists that is not true.
Occam's Razor by Avinash Kaushik - Digital Marketing and Analytics Blog
If so, the principle is not very useful. On the other hand, if Occam's razor means that when confronted with two explanations, an implausible one and a probable one, a rational person should select the probable one, then the principle seems unnecessary because so obvious. But if the principle is truly a minimalist principle, then it seems to imply the more reductionism the better. Many scientists have adopted or reinvented Occam's Razor, as in Leibniz's "identity of observables" and Isaac Newton stated the rule: " We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is " when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better. In physics we use the razor to shave away metaphysical concepts. The canonical example is Einstein's theory of special relativity compared with Lorentz's theory that ruler's contract and clocks slow down when in motion through the ether.
By Occam's razor it had to be eliminated. The principle has also been used to justify uncertainty in quantum mechanics. Heisenberg deduced his uncertainty principle from the quantum nature of light and the effect of measurement. Stephen Hawking writes in A Brief History of Time : " We could still imagine that there is a set of laws that determines events completely for some supernatural being, who could observe the present state of the universe without disturbing it.
However, such models of the universe are not of much interest to us mortals. It seems better to employ the principle known as Occam's razor and cut out all the features of the theory that cannot be observed.
- Occam's razor - The Skeptic's Dictionary - aqowovedumuc.cf.
- Occam’s razor | Origin, Examples, & Facts | aqowovedumuc.cf.
- Mom! II.
But uncertainty and the non-existence of the ether cannot be deduced from Occam's Razor alone. It can separate two theories that make the same predictions, but does not rule out other theories that might make a different prediction. Empirical evidence is also required, and Occam himself argued for empiricism, not against it. Ernst Mach advocated a version of Occam's razor which he called the Principle of Economy , stating that " Scientists must use the simplest means of arriving at their results and exclude everything not perceived by the senses.
Mach influenced Einstein when he argued that space and time are not absolute but he also applied positivism to molecules.
II. Famous Quotes about Occam’s Razor
Mach and his followers claimed that molecules were metaphysical because they were too small to detect directly. This was despite the success the molecular theory had in explaining chemical reactions and thermodynamics. It is ironic that while applying the principle of economy to throw out the concept of the ether and an absolute rest frame, Einstein published almost simultaneously a paper on brownian motion which confirmed the reality of molecules and thus dealt a blow against the use of positivism.
Occam's razor has been formalized as Minimum Description Length or Minimum Message Length, in which the total size of the theory is the length of the message required to describe the theory, plus the length of the message required to describe the evidence using the theory. Solomonoff induction is the ultimate case of minimum message length in which the code for messages can describe all computable hypotheses.
This has jokingly been referred to as " Solomonoff's lightsaber ". Back to LessWrong Create account Log in.