Featured What is Occam's Razor? How is it be abused?

[AgnosticBoy]

I have seen Occam's Razor being used in a lot of topics ranging from debates on religious topics (like the resurrection) to scientific issues. One thing I've noticed is that the principle is used in place of proof or even as a supporting reason for proof of something. Just having a little understanding of it is enough for me to question how such principle could lead to proof as opposed to just adopting a simple explanation. I could be wrong or missing something so I thought it best to discuss it here.


1. What is Occam's Razor? (in the context of science)

2. Can it been misused or abused? Please give examples.

 

[William]

The Usefulness of Occam's Razor

Re:
Matthew 22:40
“On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

Well then stick to those two, is my suggestion.
That way the secular world will know your love and understanding whilst being freed from your attempts to control any others.
Is that fair?

It appears to me that simplification is the key. The saying is related the principle of Occam's Razor.
Essentially, when faced with competing explanations for the same phenomenon, the simplest is likely the correct one.(SOURCE)

Occam's Razor hardly applies since we cannot be sure what the 'Facts' are, never mind the 'Simplest explanation'.(SOURCE)

Q: Does Occam's Razor only apply to facts or can it be applied to any philosophical hypothesis?

I think OR is useful - not only relating to purely scientific philosophy, but any philosophy.
For example, our recent ongoing interaction re Supernaturalism Vs Naturalism, supernaturalism would be the "extra layer" OR would cut away as being an unnecessary layer to explain the existence of the natural universe, provided of course, that natural processes - including the existence of consciousness - can be shown to be a better alternative to supernatural explanations which requires that one is able to explain how nature brought itself (and consciousness) into existence.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

1. What is Occam's Razor? (in the context of science)

Here are some good points that answers this question:
- "It serves instead as a heuristic device — a guide or a suggestion — that states that when given two explanations or competing theories that make the same predictions for the same thing, the simpler one is usually the correct one. It aids scientists who are developing theoretical models." (source: Howstuffworks)
- "The term "razor" refers to the "shaving away" of unnecessary assumptions when distinguishing between two theories. Among many other scientific uses, Occam's razor is used in biology to determine evolutionary change, and in medicine for use in diagnosis." (source: AAAS)
- "Occam's razor doesn't necessarily go with the simplest theory, whether it's right or wrong; it is not an example of simplicity for simplicity's sake. It merely tries to cut through the clutter to find the best theory based on the best scientific principles and knowledge at the time." (source: AAAS)
- "The basic principle, however, was enunciated as far back as Aristotle ("the more limited, if adequate, is always preferable") and Ptolemy (\"we consider it a good principle to explain the phenomena by the simplest hypothesis possible\"). It also has been related in the works of Isaac Newton (\"we are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances\")." (source: AAAS)

2. Has it been misused or abused? Please give examples.

Fortunately, one of the articles covers the exact issues I've faced from skeptics using Occam's Razor to dismiss supernatural explanations for the resurrection...
- "Skeptics use Occam's razor as a fundamental tool and sometimes as evidence itself.
...There are, however, some — skeptics and scientists alike — who wield the razor like a broadsword. To these people it proves one theory and disproves another. There are two problems with using Occam's razor as a tool to prove or disprove an explanation. One, determining whether or not something is simple (say, empirical evidence) is subjective — meaning it's up to the individual to interpret its simplicity. Two, there's no evidence that supports the notion that simplicity equals truth." (source: Howstuffworks)

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Q: Does Occam's Razor only apply to facts or can it be applied to any philosophical hypothesis?

If no facts are involved then I think logical valid points should be involved, at the least. If logic and facts are taken out of the picture then we may as well just offer any explanation, and just say that the simpler one is the best, which would go against OR of course. An explanation should explain all of the facts or information.

For example, our recent ongoing interaction re Supernaturalism Vs Naturalism, supernaturalism would be the "extra layer" OR would cut away as being an unnecessary layer to explain the existence of the natural universe, provided of course, that natural processes - including the existence of consciousness - can be shown to be a better alternative to supernatural explanations which requires that one is able to explain how nature brought itself (and consciousness) into existence.

Agreed. What some skeptics may do is leave out certain details or even invent new details, like some of the naturalistic explanations for the resurrection.
.” Even Albert Einstein created his own, more nuanced version of Occam’s razor: “It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience.” (source: nesslabs)

 

[William]

This is precisely why I created a summary of the bridging philosophy. It explains as simply as possible, the complex events which in turn can explain the natural universe without resorting to any form of supernaturalism.
I have published that summary of the bridging philosophy and it is open to critique and use of OR on it.

Since it is not established the the resurrection even happened, and there is a lot of ongoing debate about the details, I remain agnostic re that.
As I offered, explanations for it actually happening still do not have to breach what we already know about nature, and it is plausible Advanced Technological Artifacts were involved, so I accept that as a natural possibility and if this creates issues for folk, that is not something I feel I have to address or explain or somehow fit into the bridging philosophy.

The Gnostic pov as one example, deals with those issues - even that most Gnostics still appear to lean toward belief in the supernatural entities themselves.
The powers at play can still be explained naturally.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

and it is plausible Advanced Technological Artifacts were involved,

Regarding claims of someone being “raised from the dead,” wouldn’t lore and legend being among the more likely, perhaps even the most likely?

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

Earth-centered solar system: complicated since you had to have planets moving in circles within circles to make the astronomy work

Sun-centered: simpler

But it is NOT maximally simple, because the planets are moving in ellipses, not circles.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Regarding claims of someone being “raised from the dead,” wouldn’t lore and legend being among the more likely, perhaps even the most likely?

Sure. If we weigh the chances of it happening based on the times that we know it has happened (our background knowledge), then you are correct. We know that people start legends, especially the more back in history we go. In comparison, there are no known instances (nothing verifiable, at least) of someone using advanced tech to bring back a dead person. But if new evidence comes in, like if we develop such tech, or if someone uses the Biblical details as evidence (which I've Christian apologists do), then the probability of the resurrection can increase.

I get why you brought it up to address William's natural explanation for the resurrection but it's a separate issue from Occam's Razor. As I mentioned earlier, OR or simpler explanations are not always the more likely.

 

[William]

simpler explanations are not always the more likely.

OR is about simpler explanations being the "more likely" when more complicated explanations offered cannot be supported with evidence any more than the simpler ones can.