Occam's Razor

Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
I am wondering what your views and speculation are about Occam's razor.

For those that don't know, Occam's razor is a principal often followed when evaluating evidence.

Strictly stated Occam's Razor says "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." Which means little without context. You can also think of it as saying "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." Which still is a bit confusing. The modern expression of Occam's razor is "The explanation which requires the fewest new assumptions is most likely to be correct."

So when trying to decide on different explanations for something, identify each time you are required to make an assumption in order for your conclusion to hold water. Is there a different explanation which requires fewer assumptions? If so, you should strongly consider it.

But Occam's razor is not always correct. There are times when it is possible the more complicated explanation ends up being reality. This is what is taught to skeptics, but I have yet to hear an example of this.

So can anyone site a legit example of a case where Occam's razor fails?
 
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
Wow, my thread gets less attention than one of prophecy's schizophrenic regurgitations? Guess I should have given it a more colorful title like, "The seventeen faces of [absolution] ADVANTAGE / TRUTH Occam's Razor"

Do any of you utilize Occam's razor in your jobs? How about when dealing with others? I find Occam's razor to be much less reliable when dealing with situations involving human emotions, indeed it is meant for equal competing theories of fact, but still very helpful in understanding interpersonal relationships. When trying to figure out what motivates others or explain behavior, you can still identify the points at which you make assumptions, which helps you evaluate the validity of your assessment.
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
I can give you examples from right here on RIU. When we see abnormalities with a plant, it is best to try to explain them by one or the fewest possible problems. Let's say we see what appears to be multiple nutrient deficiencies. That right there seems to run counter to Occam's Razor as a single nutrient problem is more likely than multiple if we are using a balanced solution. However, we then cut with the Razor again and explain multiple deficiencies by a single cause, pH, over watering, etc. However, it does sometimes occur that multiple problems are going on at the same time, spider mites and low calcium for example.
Computer programmers use it all of the time when debugging although they might not realize it.
 
Brazko

Brazko

Well-Known Member
Heisenberg said:
Wow, my thread gets less attention than one of prophecy's schizophrenic regurgitations? Guess I should have given it a more colorful title like, "The seventeen faces of [absolution] ADVANTAGE / TRUTH Occam's Razor"

Do any of you utilize Occam's razor in your jobs? How about when dealing with others? I find Occam's razor to be much less reliable when dealing with situations involving human emotions, indeed it is meant for equal competing theories of fact, but still very helpful in understanding interpersonal relationships. When trying to figure out what motivates others or explain behavior, you can still identify the points at which you make assumptions, which helps you evaluate the validity of your assessment.
Click to expand...
Trial and Error, next time you'll get it right. :-P I've often seen your posts the mentioning Occam's Razor. After reading up on it personally, I also see how it's misused in debates but I can honestly say that I use it personally all the time, especially when I theorize. I may be applying it in a backwards sort of manner though because I'm usually trying to tie the things we know about but have little understanding to other things similar in nature that we have greater understandings of. We do not know for certainty if the Universe as a whole is cyclic but everything we observe can lead us to believe that. So taking that information and applying it to the micro/macro I seek to understand.

I know I could probably move further along in getting a better grasp of what's going on if I delved into the math/formula part of it. The thing is I know the math is tedious but its' not hard just hard work. Just like formulas, it's not like your doing a lot of calculating all the time but simply dealing with known constants, however, I get depressed just thinking about it. Thats my problem though and I'm looking to fix it.
 
Timmahh

Timmahh

Well-Known Member
ME OW. Here Kitty Kitty. errr.

back to the OPs thought.

basically, the easiest and most factual way to explain a situation, any situation at any given point, which uses the lest amount of possible probable outcomes, would be equal to occam's razor if im not mistaken. or the easiest explination is the most likely cause of the outcome you are investigating. I think. caught me in mid trim. heh.
 
MedicineMaker

MedicineMaker

Member
I always view Occams Razor as a way I once heard it interpreted "when deciding between two or more possibilities the one of least complexity is of higher probability" or something along those lines. I view this as last resort troubleshoot.

It's obviously not true 100% of the time, but when you are having a problem making a decision you should chose the more likely of the two, and this helps me a lot. Even with humans this usually seems to be true. People tend to over-analyze everything when thinking about other people, but our actions and motivations are usually quite simple.

We feel hurt, we hurt back. We feel scared, we are defensive. If you can take peoples actions down to a basic form they won't seem as complex and you can properly add them into this equation.

(rep+ if this is helpful. New to the forums.)
 
researchkitty

researchkitty

Well-Known Member
Its generally a correct theorum because the most simple outcome doesnt generally involve complex math when the entire universe is only made up of a few elementary particles. Things generally are simple because we arent overly complext at describing things. If we explained that the wall was white, we'd be generally "Occamly" correct. If we explained that the wall is made of drywall with tape, nails, framing, insulation, with a coating of material to make it look white then we'd be correct too, except this is the complex explanation.

I never understood if Occam's Razor made any assumptions about the theory to be examined though, whether they were assumed right, wrong, or neither or both as a pair of theories. I dont think it matters much, though.
 
Brazko

Brazko

Well-Known Member
from my understanding, Occam's Razor isn't about the nature of the complexity/simplicity of the entity, but the ability to describe the entity with acquired knowledge that already describes the occuring entity. Even if there is more than 1 possible choice, it's easier to start from there then invent a new entity.

However, it doesn't mean that you'll always find a Razor in the box, or even a Razor to choose from. That's when the higher degree for Complexity becomes the next step!!
 
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
researchkitty said:
I never understood if Occam's Razor made any assumptions about the theory to be examined though, whether they were assumed right, wrong, or neither or both as a pair of theories. I dont think it matters much, though.
Click to expand...
It assumes you have competing theories which make the same predictions. Such as the geocentric model vs the heliocentric model of the universe. It is meant to be used when all things are equal.


Brazko said:
from my understanding, Occam's Razor isn't about the nature of the complexity/simplicity of the entity, but the ability to describe the entity with acquired knowledge that already describes the occuring entity.
Click to expand...
That's the idea, it is about not making any more assumptions than necessary to explain. You have two explanations for something, and one of them makes no more assumptions than needed to explain, and the other makes one more assumption than is needed to explain, the lesser one is probably going to be correct. It is also important to consider the size of the assumption; some leaps of logic are bigger than others.

Occam's razor is sometimes misused when people interpret it to mean we should favor the simpler explanation. For example, believers in aliens say that when skeptics come up with too many answers for phenomena, these skeptics are violating Occam's razor. Skeptics say cattle mutilation is simply natural decay, that crop circles are hoaxes, and that UFO sightings are probably army aircraft... Believers say that alien visitors explain all those subjects and do not require us to have complicated theories about each phenomena, therefore Occam's razor favors aliens.

Knowing now what we do about this principal, can you identify why, although aliens seem to be the simpler explanation, it is a violation of Occam's razor?
 
karri0n

karri0n

Well-Known Member
Heisenberg said:
It assumes you have competing theories which make the same predictions. Such as the geocentric model vs the heliocentric model of the universe. It is meant to be used when all things are equal.




That's the idea, it is about not making any more assumptions than necessary to explain. You have two explanations for something, and one of them makes no more assumptions than needed to explain, and the other makes one more assumption than is needed to explain, the lesser one is probably going to be correct. It is also important to consider the size of the assumption; some leaps of logic are bigger than others.

Occam's razor is sometimes misused when people interpret it to mean we should favor the simpler explanation. For example, believers in aliens say that when skeptics come up with too many answers for phenomena, these skeptics are violating Occam's razor. Skeptics say cattle mutilation is simply natural decay, that crop circles are hoaxes, and that UFO sightings are probably army aircraft... Believers say that alien visitors explain all those subjects and do not require us to have complicated theories about each phenomena, therefore Occam's razor favors aliens.

Knowing now what we do about this principal, can you identify why, although aliens seem to be the simpler explanation, it is a violation of Occam's razor?
Click to expand...
I didn't know it was quiz time prof... But I believe, based on your previous definition, the fallacy would be that it requires too many assumptions:

a. there is extraterrestrial intelligent life
b. said extraterrestrial life is capable of interstellar travel
c. this interstellar extraterrestrial life feels the need to travel to our significantly underdeveloped society who is likely to fire missiles at them in our ignorance.
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
d. that interstellar traveling spacemen have got nothing better to do than travel many light years to our planet not to communicate with us but to fuck us around with our food sources and play games with us...
 
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
And how many assumptions are requires for the following explanations?

Cattle mutilation is a result of certain circumstances of death and decay.

Crop circles are caused by hoaxes 100% of the time

Sightings of alien crafts are explained by weather, misidentified aircraft, signal flares, ect. while some simply remain unexplained.

You'll find that the assumptions required are a great many more than what's required for aliens. The difference is, most of those assumptions are present in each premise, and not the conclusion. We only count the new assumptions, and pay attention to the fact that none of these explanations require assumptions which introduce new principals of the universe. Granted there is much about the universe which we don't know, probably including aliens, but that is beyond the scope of comparing two theories which both explain the same evidence equally.
 
jonblaze420

jonblaze420

Well-Known Member
an example of occam's razor failing is in that simpsons episode where bart witnesses mayor quimby's nephew get mad at a waiter, then the waiter trips and falls and charges quimby's nephew with assault.

case closed, because occam's razor would say quimbys nephew beat him up, and everyone else was pretty sure he did too.


edit: also, if bart hadn't been there, he would have been wrongfully put in jail. the easiest explanation is he is guilty because he has a rage problem. this was not the instance in this case
:peace:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top