How Valid is Ockham’s Razor?

[Ken Carman]

Well, I finally got back to the net. Next time I go somewhere where it's hard as hell to get on the net I'll have something, I hope. Looks like the threads I was following have faded... so on to "other."

This column was inspired by a debate here at V.

Here are two quotes from the column...

I am here, typing this now, to argue with a certain interpretation of the Razor, and maybe even whether it is true at all. How many times have you heard “Occam’s Razor proves?” Occam’s Razor proves nothing. It suggests. I even argue with that suggestion. I suppose it boils down to this question… how many real simple answers are there?

Occam’s Razor has its uses. Once a theory becomes needlessly complex it helps guide us towards what might be a better solution… until we learn more. But that’s all. It is not “proof” of anything, and it is a weak guideline at best. The overly complex may still be the right path to take.

How valid is Ockham, or Occam if you wish? (According to my sources both spellings are considered valid.) If you wish, read the column so you can get a better handle on my perspective. But if you don't, I'll state that I think Ockham is an assumption, and not much else. And depending upon the application it can be helpful; or sometimes worse than less than helpful.

I'll be back on line Monday morning to grade your comments.

Kidding.

[Sonart]

.

A useful paraphrase might be that, all things considered, the simplest answer is usually the right one, and I think that's a fairly accurate concept. Translated to the modern vernacular... Keep It Simply Stupid.

Problem is, how does one know when all things have been considered?

.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: Sonart . A useful paraphrase might be that, all things considered, the simplest answer is usually the right one, and I think that's a fairly accurate concept. Translated to the modern vernacular... Keep It Simply Stupid. Problem is, how does one know when all things have been considered? .

When your brain starts ti hurt... (in my case).

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: Blog post If we are to believe Ockham as it is commonly interpreted the the simplest answer must be right. “God did it.” Poof!

How is that the simplest answer? You don't stop there when trying to explain something. How did god do it, Who/what created god? Who or what created the thing that create god.... ad nauseum. When you can't explain these (and you can't without evidence) then you refer to Occam's Razor.

Just because a theory seems complex to many, the ones proposing it, find it simple. When you start adding to the theory things that have no explanation, i.e. supernatural elements, then it becomes unnecessarily complex. If the theory comes to some road block, science has no problem throw up its arms and saying, "we just don't know with any certainty". When science speaks of laws, like the laws of nature, laws of thermodynamics or the laws of parsimony, it means that what they are describing act the way they act, everywhere we've been able to test. Laws of gravity say that if drop a ball, it will travel towards the largest object near by. In earth, the largest object near by is...well... the earth so a ball will always travel toward the earth the exact same way. It doesn't mean that there isn't some other place in the universe that it doesn't work this way, its just that we have no reason (evidence) to suggest it does.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: ItsDarts How is that the simplest answer? You don't stop there when trying to explain something. How did god do it, Who/what created god? Who or what created the thing that create god.... ad nauseum. When you can't explain these (and you can't without evidence) then you refer to Occam's Razor. Just because a theory seems complex to many, the ones proposing it, find it simple. When you start adding to the theory things that have no explanation, i.e. supernatural elements, then it becomes unnecessarily complex. If the theory comes to some road block, science has no problem throw up its arms and saying, "we just don't know with any certainty". When science speaks of laws, like the laws of nature, laws of thermodynamics or the laws of parsimony, it means that what they are describing act the way they act, everywhere we've been able to test. Laws of gravity say that if drop a ball, it will travel towards the largest object near by. In earth, the largest object near by is...well... the earth so a ball will always travel toward the earth the exact same way. It doesn't mean that there isn't some other place in the universe that it doesn't work this way, its just that we have no reason (evidence) to suggest it does.

"How did God do it."

Poof. God is all powerful. God just wills it. God alway has been and will be. End of story. Do I believe that? No. Do I agree how something was done; no matter who or what did it, is important? Sure I do. But if you look at evolution, for example, compared with seven days and God willing it into existence... for argument's sake let's skip the inconvenience that you can't even have days with the complex motions of the planets and the universe in general if you do believe in "big bang..." then that would be the the simplest. Right? But "true?" Not really.

Just because a theory seems complex to many, the ones proposing it, find it simple.

I agree. The dynamics of sound seem simple to me, or how I use puppets, or perform... try to explain it to someone else like my wife; who was supposed to work with my puppets while I was on tour for my local contract, and you find "not so simple." I have tried to explain how sound moves, the difference between digital recording and analog, the tech behind record plating/mastering many times. To me, it seems simple. Those who propose, study and imagine theories, tech, all kinds of ways to do things, are so "in the loop" they don't see the actual complexity of what they're doing.

In my own line of work I've seen it time and again. People come back to me who thought they could drag out their old cassette recorders and work with kids; one of my many services, and say, "I didn't realize how hard and complex what you do is."

The greatest performers, and I use that term in the widest sense possible... as in a brain surgeon is performing... make what they do look simple: it's not.

I suppose one could extend that to God if theists who accept Genesis as literal also accepted evolution and other more scientific explanations... but that's would be something other than the point I was making. I'm referring to the "poof God did it" people.

"...it means that what they are describing act the way they act..."

Huh?

"Laws of gravity say that if drop a ball, it will travel towards the largest object near by."

This brings up a point. If Ockham was all that applicable, two objects dropped, wouldn't the heaviest fall faster: hit first? It may travel in all other senses the same way, but the simpler answer would be "heavy falls faster." You have to "complex up" things a bit to get all Newton.

[Questatement]

Simple.

Ockham’s Razor is valid where and where it applies and invalid when and where it does not. I just don't get the fuss over this guy's fame.

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: Ken Carman Poof. God is all powerful. God just wills it. God alway has been and will be. End of story. Do I believe that? No. Do I agree how something was done; no matter who or what did it, is important? Sure I do. But if you look at evolution, for example, compared with seven days and God willing it into existence... for argument's sake let's skip the inconvenience that you can't even have days with the complex motions of the planets and the universe in general if you do believe in "big bang..." then that would be the the simplest. Right? But "true?" Not really.

I can reduce it to one simpler explanation, the universe just poofed itself, no god needed. If you come back with the "all things that exist have a cause, then you must explain why god doesn't need a cause or accept that the universe doesn't need a cause either. In otherwords, existence doesn't necessarily need a first cause and if it does, then saying god is excluded from this, I'll simply say so is the universe. Your explanation doesn't explain anything except unsupported claims. It may appear as the easiest answer, but it still doesn't explain anything. It doesn't explain why a god is allowed off the hook of first cuases. Just saying so, doesn't make it so. O.R. is nothing more than a principle, not a proof. The actual theories being compared still need evidence to support their claims, which the god hypothesis has yet to do.

The greatest performers, and I use that term in the widest sense possible... as in a brain surgeon is performing... make what they do look simple: it's not.

Its not to the person not trained to do it, but I disagree that its not all the simple for the person trained in a field, you said so yourself earlier, which I clipped out of this post.

This brings up a point. If Ockham was all that applicable, two objects dropped, wouldn't the heaviest fall faster: hit first? It may travel in all other senses the same way, but the simpler answer would be "heavy falls faster." You have to "complex up" things a bit to get all Newton.

I don't think O.R. would apply in this case, because its not two or more competing theories, but as the saying goes, all things being equal, i.e. same size, shape, wind resistance, etc, and a thorough understanding of the laws of gravity, then the simple answer is no. I think your understanding of O.R. is lacking.

From wiki

When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question. To straightforwardly summarize the principle as it is most commonly understood, “Of several acceptable explanations for a phenomenon, the simplest is preferable.”

I don't find a god as sufficiently answering the question or acceptable without evidence, just because a theist says god poofed us into existence, he "wills it" or what ever. Its merely god of the gaps reasoning. We don't apply O.R. in cases where we are describing things without thorough knowledge of both theories like you fully understanding sound and how it moves and me not understanding it and saying god pushed sound to my ear. You're basically building a strawman in my opinion.

[barts]

In my view, Occam's Razor as a concept is obviously idiotic. It's not possible to prove its validity. For example, what is the simplest explanation for me sitting here at computer and writing this sentence? Given what we believe we know about the formation of the universes and the rise of life on this little corner of it, there is no simplest explanation. The notion is absurd on its face, and reflects simplistic view of existence.

[rez]

Quote by: barts I Given what we believe we know

we don't really "believe" we know. Much of what we do know we know. However, what we don't know is the potential added variables that could change what we do know. Since like you said, we sit in a very small corner of the universe there maybe a chance we are missing some added variables. But, will those added variables completely change the things we do know? Nah.

about the formation of the universes and the rise of life on this little corner of it, there is no simplest explanation.

We know that simple things that are put together form complex things.

[Jack]

Quote by: Questatement Simple. Ockham’s Razor is valid where and where it applies and invalid when and where it does not. I just don't get the fuss over this guy's fame.

He's famous simply because history records him as the source of a truism that is frequently cited, frequently incorrectly. But you're right, it only applies in certain contexts.It's conditional. Much like reality itself. It's not an ultimate truth or an absolute.

[Ken Carman]

I can reduce it to one simpler explanation, the universe just poofed itself, no god needed. If you come back with the "all things that exist have a cause, then you must explain why god doesn't need a cause or accept that the universe doesn't need a cause either. In otherwords, existence doesn't necessarily need a first cause and if it does, then saying god is excluded from this, I'll simply say so is the universe. Your explanation doesn't explain anything except unsupported claims. It may appear as the easiest answer, but it still doesn't explain anything. It doesn't explain why a god is allowed off the hook of first cuases. Just saying so, doesn't make it so. O.R. is nothing more than a principle, not a proof. The actual theories being compared still need evidence to support their claims, which the god hypothesis has yet to do.

I wasn't saying I agreed with that explanation. That should be pretty damn.obvious. But for those who accept it, it does "explaiin," and I supect they feel no need to get into specifics. Kind of like, "It's magic." (There's a long diatribe I will skip over that one because I do magic as part of my performances. But it has little to do with the topic.) God is let off the hook because he is God. "How dare you question the..." PLEASE remember, I find that type of theology offensive myself: simple minded. But... given the misapplication of Ockham I am referring to... wouldn't "simple minded" be more accurate?

Its not to the person not trained to do it, but I disagree that its not all the simple for the person trained in a field, you said so yourself earlier, which I clipped out of this post.

Training happens in many ways, and no matter how many courses and practicums one has: nothing beats experience. You slowly build up to a level of proficiency. But with that eventual comes an ease that can offer illusion to those who have it. Hence, my comments about sound and performing. I realize it's a lot more difficult than it seems to me. Whenever I try to explain to my wife and see her try to manipulate a puppet or interact with an audience: or even just tear down a program, I realize I suffer from that illusion. I've noticed those who watch me often do too.

Many misapply Ockham here too: they think when they watch a great performer or someone brilliant in their field "it's all talent, some have it, some don't." There are those who are gifted, but usually this is a load of BS. But the "it's all talent, some have it, some don't" is the simplest explanation, so if we were to accept the premise simple is true... then that would be best. It's usually a complex mix of hard work, time, talent, offered opportunities that others don't get and support: both verbal and financial support. But that mucks up the simplicity of "it's all talent, some have it, some don't," so I have found many keep going back to that. Again, a mis-ap.

I don't think O.R. would apply in this case, because its not two or more competing theories,

Perhaps, but it could be turned into such. Gravity + Mass + Weight= Opeed of object

a thorough understanding of the laws of gravity

Which makes the discussion a bit more complex. (That doesn't equal "wrong," which is kind of my point.

From wiki“Of several acceptable explanations for a phenomenon, the simplest is preferable.”

You may note that I'm mostly arguing with misapplications. But what is acceptable and what is not is in the mind of those who accept... or not. Spend much time on a Darwin vs. Creationism debate here, or almost anything else and one will see how that is true. Now we can argue that to be accurate we shoudl should scientific principle... or the Bible if you are so inclined... and I agree generally with the first. But that goes back to: "what is acceptable and what is not is in the mind of those who accept... or not."

I'm referring to the ways things are here; not "how they should be." Argue, fuss and fume as much as we wish, there will alwasy be those who find a different kind of "acceptable." (Yeah, I know, "they're wrong," but that doesn't make them go away or change.)

I don't find a god as sufficiently answering the question or acceptable without evidence, just because a theist says god poofed us into existence, he "wills it" or what ever.

Neither do I, but kind of "not the point."

We don't apply O.R.nowledge of both theories like you fully understanding sound and how it moves and me not understanding it and saying god pushed sound to my ear. You're basically building a strawman in my opinion.

We disagree here. I think that example I provided is every bit as valid as evolution vs. God did it in 7 days... poof! Notice those who argue such never get into how he did it: the mechanics. Hence: "poof." My comment wasn't an attempt to build an strawman, only to provide an example of what I was trying to explain.

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: Ken Carman We disagree here. I think that example I provided is every bit as valid as evolution vs. God did it in 7 days... poof! Notice those who argue such never get into how he did it: the mechanics. Hence: "poof." My comment wasn't an attempt to build an strawman, only to provide an example of what I was trying to explain.

If you think that Poof vs evolution is a valid use of OR, then you're right, we disagree. Bart's above example is also not using OR in proper context. Jack, in all his succinct wisdom, said it best.... a truism that is frequently cited, frequently incorrectly. and it only applies in certain contexts.It's conditional. Much like reality itself. It's not an ultimate truth or an absolute.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: ItsDarts If you think that Poof vs evolution is a valid use of OR, then you're right, we disagree. Bart's above example is also not using OR in proper context. Jack, in all his succinct wisdom, said it best.... a truism that is frequently cited, frequently incorrectly. and it only applies in certain contexts.It's conditional. Much like reality itself. It's not an ultimate truth or an absolute.

If you look carefully at what you typed, you twisted my meaning. Note: I was referring to my example that you were criticizing as invalid and how it compared to "poof vs. evolution." Now I accept evolution, and I don't think poof is valid, personally. But I do think it's simpler. And therefore it's applicable to the discussion because we are referring to misapplications of Ockham.

To use your own words, God pushing sound into my ear is far more simple than transients, various frequencies, the capability of hearing in various individuals, pink noise, white noise... we just have God pushing sound into my ear. We could even go all biblical with it and say that God only pushes certain sounds into certain ears, and hardens the hearing of those he wishes to when he wants to make a point. Simple. But incorrect compared with the complexity of what constitutes sound. God and his pushing is the simplest explanation. How does he push? He doesn't even need a "how." It's a miracle. (Which seems to be an explanation certain theists use when they wish to escape how complex things can be.) God is all powerful. "End of discussion."

But it isn't, nor should it be, right?

On this I'm sure we agree.

[Judicator]

I think to invoke Ockham's razor and use it as the deciding factor in the debate, both theories have to explain the fact set equally well. This is rarely the case, so at best we can go for two theories that explain the fact set to the same extent. This is why we should favor the complicated aerodynamic explanation for butterfly flight over the simple fact that they have wings.

That said, when comparing two hypotheses, you can pick out their assumptions, say for hypothesis 1 you have A1, A2, and A3 while hypothesis 2 requires that you make A1, A2, A3, and A4.

Since for any assumption, the probability that it's true is less than one (otherwise it would be knowledge), P(A1&A2&A3) < P(A1&A2&A3&A4), so you should accept the explanation that only uses the first three assumptions. Additionally the assumptions have to be independent.

Of course, maybe there are no overlapping assumptions between the two theories it might get harder. But still, if you aren't able to actually assign probabilities to the assumptions and have no reason to believe one is by itself more likely than any other, it seems better to favor the theory requiring fewer assumptions.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Judicator I think to invoke Ockham's razor and use it as the deciding factor in the debate, both theories have to explain the fact set equally well. This is rarely the case, so at best we can go for two theories that explain the fact set to the same extent. This is why we should favor the complicated aerodynamic explanation for butterfly flight over the simple fact that they have wings. That said, when comparing two hypotheses, you can pick out their assumptions, say for hypothesis 1 you have A1, A2, and A3 while hypothesis 2 requires that you make A1, A2, A3, and A4. Since for any assumption, the probability that it's true is less than one (otherwise it would be knowledge), P(A1&A2&A3) < P(A1&A2&A3&A4), so you should accept the explanation that only uses the first three assumptions. Additionally the assumptions have to be independent. Of course, maybe there are no overlapping assumptions between the two theories it might get harder. But still, if you aren't able to actually assign probabilities to the assumptions and have no reason to believe one is by itself more likely than any other, it seems better to favor the theory requiring fewer assumptions.

Hmm... interesting application. Might use it myself and see. As I mentioned, I do feel it has it's uses... but on it's own? Generally OR can be far too simplistic an outlook, IMO.

[Judicator]

Quote by: Ken Carman Hmm... interesting application. Might use it myself and see. As I mentioned, I do feel it has it's uses... but on it's own? Generally OR can be far too simplistic an outlook, IMO.

First you have to analyze how well each explanation fits the facts, then I would look at the assumptions behind each explanation. Often the first is enough to reject one explanation, so Ockham's razor alone, like you said, isn't enough alone.

[Compugasm]

You guys are over thinking all this. Simple way to disprove Ockhams Razor:



Behold, the Shrimp USB drive.

[Century 25]

Just think what volumes e = mc² turned into..

And see how a simple, mindless operation can get effed up:

A centipede was happy quite, Until a frog in fun Said, "Pray, which leg comes after which?" This raised her mind to such a pitch, She lay distracted in the ditch Considering how to run...

[oades11]

Quote by: Ken Carman God and his pushing is the simplest explanation. How does he push? He doesn't even need a "how." It's a miracle. (Which seems to be an explanation certain theists use when they wish to escape how complex things can be.) God is all powerful. "End of discussion." But it isn't, nor should it be, right?

Merely expanding on what you've said, Occam's Razor isn't really about how simply an explanation can be expressed, but rather how simply an explanation can be physically, ontologically applied. While "God did it" is the far more simple, elegant explanation linguistically (as opposed to the spontaneous expansion of time and space- i.e. the Big Bang), the same explanation in an ontological sense for a supreme being is obviously far more complex, and in this case it's merely superfluous to our scientific notion of the BB (or any other naturalistic explanation).

Simplicity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)