johnvon wrote:
> Ockham's razor also Occam's razor
> A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be
> multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the
> simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an
> explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms
> of
> what is already known. Also called law of parsimony. After William of
> Ockham.
While Occam's razor is very helpfull sometimes,
there are problems with using this rule on the "unknown".
1) The "preferable" does not mean the "correct" choice (see your
definition).
2) The unknown may be very simple, but still beyond our understanding.
3) Some "simple explainations" are not correct. (Clouds for example have
never
been mistaken for UFO's as far known to me).
4) Different types of "simple" depends on the believe of people
involved.
("God" is a very simple explaination to everything).
5) Some "complex" things may have "simple" but new basic principles
(quantum physics).
6) This rule assumes that the reductionistic approach (since
smaller=simpler)
is always the preferred one.
I leave it to you all to think of better "exceptions".
Please not that exceptions can be found to every "rule" that we
have been using to define our "preference". It can therefore only
be used to state our preference, not to state what is correct
and what is not..
If applied on abductions for example, we could use this rule to state
that we "prefer" not to accept the available evidence yet, but can
not "determine" whether this phenomena is actually happening or not.
Greetings,
Dirk