Opinion of Ockham's Razor

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

Opinion of Ockham's Razor

[CatoMinor]

Negative (Theist)

[DemPGH]

Choice 3. Occam's razor is, of course, a Freedom Razor.

Actually, contrary to a lot of popular belief, and my simplified view of the medieval times, there was in select corners of the Middle Ages good quality scientific thinking and research (as with lenses - he or she will be famous who finds the Digges reflecting telescope, if one existed). Roger Bacon is an excellent example. Alchemy as well, which was a precursor to chemistry. And outside the West the Chinese, for example, had outstanding knowledge of the heavens.

But in the West there just had to be a slow, grinding movement away from the superstition, belief in complex mysticism, and the obviously completely erroneous notion that Aristotle was the end-all-be-all of knowledge. Items like Occam's Razor just started to move us past that, started to mature the thinking process of western humanity.

[anvi]

It's a bit ironic how the notion of Ockham's "razor" has been applied in the history of Western thought, since Ockham, though a nominalist, believed that God was the only truly necessary being and all other beings were contingent, so that cutting God out of cosmological explanations would have been absurd to him.  Fourteenth century Franciscans, it turns out, even nominalist and excommunicated ones, held onto God rather tightly. 

Anyway, given how Ockham's "razor" has come to be applied in various fields, I can't answer definitively (as an atheist).  In application, in mathematics and the empirical sciences, sometimes it works well and sometimes it doesn't.  The reason for that variance is the term "necessity."  Sometimes more complex explanations are required to understand certain phenomena, and sometimes simpler ones are more powerful.  It's in the end a good rule of thumb in deciding between alternative explanations, but it's not a self-evident truth in and of itself, nor is it a truth-maker. 

[DemPGH]

Yeah, in "holding onto God," people for far too long had little choice because it was such a cultural norm, the God of the Gaps was a very commonly accepted [scientific] position, and to be an atheist, like Hume, meant you were at great risk to not get the promotions you might deserve - and were glad to just stay out of jail!

The way simplicity is broadly understood is to say that you don't introduce unnecessary elements or factors into explaining something. Newton was a huge proponent, obviously, and what he was doing was quite complicated. Simplicity basically owes a lot to empiricism.

For example, if in the autumn I want to explain how leaves get in the gutters, I do not invoke gnomes from the park, but rather that the leaves fell off the trees and the wind blew them there. It is an excellent "rule of thumb" now, yes.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Choice 3, though there is some needed emphasis on usually.

[DC Al Fine]

I'm ok with it, although there is a tendency on the part of some atheists to turn it into Ockham's Chainsaw.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Usually good for initutional thought but bad for serious philosophical debates as it nearly always implies a type of foundationalism.

[Chief Justice PiT]

     It is a useful rule of thumb to apply, but it is not applicable to all situations, or an argument in itself (at least, in the abstract sense).

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

What Gully and Pit said.

[muon2]

Ockham's razor is a great guide in analyzing a problem. It makes sense to start by positing a simple explanation. If that stands up to scrutiny then it can remain the guiding explanation. When counterexamples cause the simple explanation to fail, one can naturally increase the complexity. If the complexity is only a refinement of the simple explanation, the simple explanation still has value to instruct others who are initially grappling with the problem.

[barfbag]

The simplest solution is often the best solution? I must ask what is the simplest solution?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The simplest solution is often the best solution? I must ask what is the simplest solution?

Usually the simplest solution would be that our politicians are incompetent rather than there being a conspiracy. But sometimes the conspiracy theorists turn out to be right. See the 1968 Vietnamese peace talks being sabotaged by Nixon.

[barfbag]

The simplest solution is often the best solution? I must ask what is the simplest solution?

Usually the simplest solution would be that our politicians are incompetent rather than there being a conspiracy. But sometimes the conspiracy theorists turn out to be right. See the 1968 Vietnamese peace talks being sabotaged by Nixon.

It can be very complex to find the simplest solution because in order to find the best solution, all solutions must still be waged. Even at that, it's far fetched.