Occam’s Razor as rule of thumb
September 5, 2007
J. Lynne mentioned Occam’s Razor, which reminded me that I’ve been meaning to write about the Razor for a long time.
Strictly speaking, Occam’s razor translates to “entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity,” which people have popularly interpreted as “all things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one.” This latter interpretation seems to tie in pretty closely with the Skeptic’s game of “is it more likely.” For example: is it more likely that men made crop circles or that aliens made crop circles?
So how do we know whether or not all other considerations actually are equal and which solution is the simplest? As I mentioned earlier, some crop circles exhibit properties that are apparently very difficult to recreate. If there are aliens, and they are using a tool specially designed for the purpose, then that would seem to be a simpler answer — what complicates the issue is not the process of making crop circles, but having to prove that aliens exist in order to support your theory. Conversely, isn’t the argument that planes fly because the prayers of the righteous keep them aloft simpler than the complex rules of aerodynamics? Maybe you don’t think so, but now we’re having an argument on what represents “simplicity,” and that’s not simple at all.
For me, though, the real kicker is that this interpretation of Occam’s Razor assumes natural systems tend towards simplicity, an assertion that is not only unfounded but runs contrary to observed experience. Scientific models are never precisely accurate, and there’s always something new to learn about issues you thought were settled. Simplicity seems to be the exception rather than the rule.
I am an armchair philosopher, so I have not read much about our friend William of Ockham. So perhaps this interpretation was close to what he meant. But “entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity” seems less like a rule of thumb about how to judge what is real and what is not and more pragmatic advice about how to proceed in inquiry — don’t make a more complex hypothesis than necessary. Occam, being a fourteenth-century friar, probably didn’t quite use it that way. Bacon and Descartes’ works were still well into the future, and Occam and his brothers still relied heavily on thought experiment. But that doesn’t mean we can’t use Occam’s razor as a pragmatic tool for choosing which scientific theory we think might more accurately explain any given issue.
But it’s not a shortcut past testing and experimentation. You still have to make sure the hypothesis fits. Just because a theory is simple and pretty and requires few moving parts does not make it correct.
Posted in Science
content rss
September 5th, 2007 at 11:44 am
If I were an immortal billionaire, I would launch a consumer product called “Occam’s Shaving Cream.”
September 5th, 2007 at 11:46 am
Slogan: “Made with only the simplest of ingredients!”
September 5th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
You know, the really funny bit is that I so rarely get to quote something intelligent I heard on t.v. I know I learned Occam’s Razor in high school, but it’s been repeatedly referred to on Sci-Fi’s “Eureka” so it’s fresh in my mind.
I still stand by my theory in this case that if there is intelligent life out there, it wouldn’t be out there playing mind games with us by making crop circles. More than likely we’ve been making these kind of symbols for the gods and any possible otherworld entities to help guide them or to signal them.
September 5th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
I don’t know. Theoretical aliens could (theoretically) have other reasons for creating crop circles. I know I’m imposing our culture on alien life (which I just recently denounced), but what about graffiti? Joyriding teenagers out for a laugh? Artistic expression? Scavenger Hunt? Cool souvenir photos for the scrapbook?
I can’t believe that humans are important enough to seek out simply to “mess with”, unless that’s a huge sport on some other world. But I also can’t assume that aliens have our kind of ideas about anything. It would be funny if it was a huge practical joke, though.
My question? If there ARE aliens and they are doing some of the crop circles, are we imitating them? Or are they imitating us?
September 5th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Of course, there’s always Walter Chatton’s “anti-razor”…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Chatton
September 6th, 2007 at 3:16 am
Hah. That one doesn’t flow trippingly off the tongue.
I like Kant’s better:
September 6th, 2007 at 7:50 am
There is plenty of argument against simplicity, even among people who are not in the argument. In my experience, most simplicity has a lot of complexity behind it without which it would not be simple at all. A lot of simple (and simple-minded) things I do are based on mechanics and technologies I don’t have a clue about. I do have more curiosity about crop circles than I have about how the copy machine works, and that is unaccountable as well, since I have never seen a crop circle.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
“I can’t believe that humans are important enough to seek out simply to “mess with”, unless that’s a huge sport on some other world.”
– Auntie M
… maybe this is their version of cow tipping. we’re the cows.
September 6th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
I have seen crop circles somewhat up close. I have a photo…erm…somewhere. I saw them while visiting Avesbury Stone Circle in England last summer. They weren’t as impressive as I thought they’d be. The crop circles, that is. The Stones were quite impressive, though the town is built through them and part of them is a large sheep pasture.
Anyway, they just seemed to be part of the atmosphere or culture, like the Stone Circles and the chalk drawings on the mountain sides. They just seemed expected. It wouldn’t surprise me if crop circles started out as part of that sort of tradition and came with us Europeans over the ocean and we just keep doing it but have forgotten why.