Is Occam's Razor a logical fallacy?

[jokerman]

I did some thinking on this today while on a run.

The value of Occam's Razor depends on one's own epistemological theory.  If scientific models or ideas are merely evaluated for their utility to society and, furthermore, their ability to be translated into various realms of thought and evolve the full body of scientific "knowledge," then Occam's Razor is very relevant.  If a complex idea can be thought of as a system of ideas, then the less complex the system is the easier it can be adjusted to different fields of application or to account for new empirical information.

It is worth noting that, for example, regardless of the relative truth in Newton's theories vs. those of Leibniz, the former, being much simpler and less convoluted than the latter, formed the basis of modern physics, and even the framework for Einstein's disproval of Newtonian physics in itself.  Even though, possibly, from a metaphysical standpoint, Leibniz was closer to Einstein than Newton, it was Newton's theories that had the mutability to progress into something more advanced.