Should occam's razor be revised?

Question

According to occam's razor, the simplest explanation is often corrrect. However, the simpest explainatin is often wrong. For example, it is easier to believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth than it is to believe the Earth is moving yet we can't feel the movement. It is also easier to believe that all the animals on Earth were made by God rather than the complex and very long drawn out process of evolution.

Perhaps simple explanations are actually more complex when you consider all the facts. The theory that the Sun revolved around the Earth needed to be revised to explain certain abnormalities that were discovered overtime. The standard model of the universe before Galileo was very complicated. The planets and the sun each had two orbits. Galileo's model is actually simplier, it is just counter-intuitive.

Answer 1

First off, Occam razor demands that in addition to "being simple" a theory must explain ALL FACTS.

Saying that god created species hardly explains ANY FACTS.



As far as what rotates around what -- i truly does not matter. It is correct to say that sun revolves around earth and that earth revolves around the sun, or that both revolve around a random point in space, all these theories are equally complex.[1]

Answer 2

I think the proper reading of Occam's Razor is that when looking for a possible explanation of the evidence available, the simplest explanation that accounts for all evidence is often the best. Evolution is actually a very simple theory, and I would say it serves to support Occam's Razor. What is simpler, the idea that organisms that are better at reproducing will leave more offspring and that traits are inherited or that each species was divinely created by an infinitely complex being for some incomprehensible purpose? If God is infinite, as creationists believe, then he is necessarily more complex than the finite process of evolution, no matter how long and drawn out it may be.



The sun-centered solar system is another classic example. If you don't look at the astronomical evidence, it might seem like the simplest explanation is that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it. When early astronomers actually began studying the evidence, though, they had to construct elaborate mechanisms to account for the actual movements of the planets. Since it appeared that the planets moved backward, the geocentric theorists had to come up with elaborate theories about retrograde motion and crystalline spheres and all sorts of stuff. The theory that the sun was at the center of the solar system was able to account for the evidence in a much simpler way, and that simplicity was what attracted people to that theory before there was any "proof."



I think you aren't reading the Razor correctly. It shouldn't be read as saying just that the simplest possibility is what is the case (a universe with nothing in it would be a lot simpler than the present one, but we can see that is not the case.) It should be read as a rule of thumb that when considering possible explanations of the evidence at hand, the simplest explanation is more likely to be correct because it posits fewer entities, and thus fewer entities that can possibly not exist. If you have a choice between X and Y or just X for a possible explanation, and both equally explain the evidence, just X is more likely to be true. Quite simple really.



If you do have criticisms of Occam's Razor, I think you should use better examples, because the two that you used actually both follow the Razor.

Answer 3

Occam's Razor is often misrepresented as saying that "the simplest explanation is often correct" - if that were the case I would agree with you that it is often b***cks.



What he actually wrote was:



"We must mever assume a number of elements unless we are forced to do so"

"To employ a number of principles when it is possible to use a few is a waste of time" and

"To work with more entities where it is possible to work with fewer is futile"



Now THIS principle, I would say, is spot on. It's key to the development of Relativity Theory. Before relativity theory physicists had positied a "luminiferous ether" which carried light - rather like air carries sound. Einstein showed that the "luminiferous ether" was not necessary.



Of course in the correct formulation the razor supports evolution rather than Intelligent Design - evolution explains things with one less entity.

Answer 4

Ockham's Ravor is actually "Plurality should not be hypothesised without necessity." Which translates as "Don't over-complicate stuff." Which boils down to "The simplest solution is most likely the accurate one." There is no language of specifics here... he is talking in majority terms, it is not a fool-proof philosophy, because, let's face it, fools are ingenious.



The "two orbit" model is complex. Galileo's idea is much simpler. Both, assuming all else is equal, explain the movements of the planets. Which is simpler? Having answered that question, who cares whether or not it is counter-intuitive?

Answer 5

The fact that Occam’s razor imposes the elimination of UNNECESSARY information cannot be REVISED without destroying its value.

Occam’s razor states "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." Sometimes it is quoted in one of its original Latin forms "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" So, it addresses what makes thoughts "irrational" - a poor way of arriving at truth; it eliminates unnecessary information or variables.

A theorem used extensively in computer science today, follows the same logic of eliminating unnecessary variables and information, it is called the Bayes’ theorem. This theorem distinguishes between weak and strong evidence and not only tells us what is and isn't evidence, it also describes the strength of evidence. It not only tells us when to revise our probabilities, but how much to revise This will give a mathematical reply that is precise, exact, and contains all the intuitions as special cases. This mathematical reply is known as Bayes' Theorem: p(A|X) =

{p(X|A)*p(A)} / { p(X|A)*p(A) + p(X|~A)*p(~A)}.

Answer 6

Occam's razor would suggest knowledge is simpler to live with than ignorance - hence your sun/earth orbit issue is mute. The people lived in ignorance. Occam's razor needs to be re=applied at each level of investigation. Hence your second # uses the conclusion of the first w/o applying to the new scenario.

Forsooth. Just when I learned to shave.

Answer 7

I believe the words " All things being equal..." are somewhere in there. So, considering evidence suppports one side more than the other in those examples, these things are not equal. Therefore, for the theory to apply, there should be no evidence suppporting any explination being more likely than the other, besides occam's razor. Occam's razor doesn't require revising.

Answer 8

The razor is only true when we are considering a single question of causality. It can not be applied as effectively against more complex questions because the segmentation of the question into many smaller questions is rarely an easy or obvious thing to do. The problems you cited arose because people took vastly complex question groups and assumed that they were single simple questions.

Answer 9

properly, "the finest is the finest" paraphrasing of Occam's Razor truly isn't that precise, in my opinion. The axiom, as interperted through Bertrand Russel, states that if accessible clarify a phenomenon devoid of assuming hypotheticals, then there's no floor for assuming them. In different words, for 2 or better causes considered on equivalent floor in words of their ability to describe the stated responses, one might want to continuously opt for first for the reason in words of the fewest accessible style of causes, elements, or variables. at the same time as/if those causes are eradicated, then bypass and evaluate something else. in case you do favor to bypass with the "least puzzling answer is the finest" style of interpretation, i might want to fairly see it phrased "the finest answer is, all else being equivalent, the most in all likelihood". i might want to apply "in all likelihood" fairly of "best". This captures the easy sentiment and signifies that the reason is tentative and should be shown. once you say "the finest", it signifies that the reason is absolute and no added interest is due. you do not favor to provide that effect, that isn't any longer very clinical :) So, in words of global warming, one need no longer bypass any farther than naming better CO2 emissions because the regularly happening rationalization, which interior of reason straight forward positioned that way. despite the indisputable fact that, in global warming as in the different idea in technology, the better you learn it, the better complexity you exhibit. this does no longer advise Occam's razor stops using, because Occam's razor is meant to slice away the hypotheticals, no longer the truly evidence and idea in protecting with that evidence.

Answer 10

Ptolemaic astronomy is simpler if you ignore the facts.



But if you want a theory that pertains to the facts,

the ancient route is far too complicated.



We are privileging the facts and considering theories that can deal with all of them.

Answer 11

'Galileo's model is actually simplier, it is just counter-intuitive.'



thats right... btw,occams razor is so simple im surprised it even has a name...and its definitely right

Answer 12

Occum's razor is a matter of opinion in most cases. It all depends on the individual.

Answer 13

you speak truely and maybe on that point it should be revised. unfortunately, i am not smart enough to say anything inteligent on the subject. (altho i have often though of similar things myself...)