A Challenge: Can You Defeat Ockham's Razor?

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Eval Ramman, Mar 24, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Eval Ramman

    Eval Ramman Registered Member

    Messages:
    1
    Hello all,

    I'm sure most scientists and philosophers of science have heard of Ockham's Razor. It's been stated in a few different ways, but the basic idea is that when looking at a number of competing explanations, (all else being 'equal') it is best or most reasonable to accept the simplest explanation (where simple is defined many ways, but perhaps most simply as the least number of axioms or assumptions that go into the explanation).

    Anyway, what I'm wondering is: can anyone think of an intuitive counter-example to Ockham's Razor?

    It probably isn't that hard to come up with examples from the history of science where one theory seemed simpler at the time, but turned out not to be when NEW DATA came in. However, what I'm looking for is not a case where new data showed that the simpler explanation was wrong. Such a case would show that the simplest explanation is not ALWAYS the right one. However, Ockham's Razor never claims the simplest explanation will ALWAYS be the right one - only that it is most reasonable to choose the simplest one (presumably because the simplest explanations TEND TO be correct).

    So what I am looking for is not a case with new data, but one where our human intuitions tell us that the simpler of two explanations is NOT the one we choose.


    To clarify: imagine the following two explanations for our normal, everyday experiences:

    Explanation 1: The world exists and has existed for a long time basically as observed.

    Explanation 2: It appears that the world exists and has existed for a long time basically as observed, BUT that is an illusion and in reality the entire world *poofed* into being a moment ago as is (including all the books and memories that falsely point to a world that has existed more than a moment).

    Think about this for a while and you'll note that BOTH explanations account for ALL the data (our experiences) EQUALLY WELL. No observation/experience could possibly PROVE one rather than another (since any such observation/experience could simply be an illusion, and the second explanation still true!).

    Yet, we note that the second explanation is presumably more complex than the first. It contains ALL of the information of the first ("...the world exists and has existed for a long time basically as observed..."), AND more (that it is an illusion). Since it has more information it is more complex, and so Ockham's Razor tells us to accept the first explanation rather than the second.

    Get the idea?


    Now, the challenge is to come up with a counter-example to Ockham's Razor in a situation where the data doesn't point to one explanation over the other. That is, where the two explanations truly do account for all the data at hand equally well (preferably they account for it not just as well, but in the same way). Is there a case where most intelligent people, after putting in a little thought, will generally agree that the simpler explanation is not the best (or where most intelligent people, after putting in a little thought, will generally accept the more complex explanation)?


    Fire up those thought-experience-producing-machines (or open the history books if you think you can find one that doesn't involve explanations that fail to account for the data equally well) and see if you can come up with a counter-example. I dare ya

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Eval Ramman, Mar 24, 2002
    #1

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,421
    Ockham's razor is a rule of thumb, nothing more. It says that given two theories which explain the facts <b>equally</b> well, we should prefer the simpler one. Once you can distinguish between two theories by an experimental or evidential test, the razor has nothing to say on the matter.

    You can't find a counter-example. Given two theories based on the same evidence, either you choose to use the razor or not to, as you wish. Follow the rules, or don't. There will always be cases where the razor is proved wrong by subsequent evidence.
     
    James R, Mar 24, 2002
    #2

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. bbcboy

    bbcboy Recovering christian Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,104
    So the world "Poofed"
    If "Poofing" can happen on such a grand scale it's fair to suppose it would also happen at lesser values.

    As we generally see little evidence of other things "Poofing" the liklihood of the entire world doing so is a bit slim.

    Therefore the simplest answer is that history is as it says it is and no "Poofing" took place

    I'm a Poof I know this to be true.

    Hang on tho'

    I witness "Poofing " everyday on a small scale...
    OH MY GOOOOOOD!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    bbcboy, Mar 25, 2002
    #3

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wet1

    wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,616
    wet1, Mar 25, 2002
    #4
  8. bbcboy

    bbcboy Recovering christian Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,104
    bbcboy,

    I gotta question....

    Is "poofing" a typo?

    No dear heart
    just a bit of an osbcure verb I made up in the bath

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
     
    bbcboy, Mar 25, 2002
    #5
  9. Pine_net

    Pine_net Chaos Product Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    485
    Simple is as Simple does.
     
    Pine_net, Apr 5, 2002
    #6
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page