Suppose as given a phenomenon we wish to explain. Ockham's razor is a widely recognized heuristic for choosing between competing explanations: choose the one that makes fewer ontological commitments. — Srap Tasmaner
"Entities are not to be multiplied without necessity" (Non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate).
That is to say that no additional information about X can be obtained by adding to A - specifying that other things have to happen. Any other account B would be an intersection of A with other events*3* which is less likely than A. In fact, A is the most likely theory. — fdrake
Simpler typically means less chance of error / higher chance of subsequently discovering errors (and easier to comprehend). — jorndoe
Yes, I agree with everyone's alternative characterizations of the razor. What's missing is why we should care. For instance, why should you want to make fewer errors? — Srap Tasmaner
ADDED: there's a coder's maxim that you shouldn't make a program as cleverly as you can, because if it has a bug, by definition you're not clever enough to find it.
You are of course free to bid 0, but there's a chance your bid will not be taken seriously. — Srap Tasmaner
I just found it quite odd that anyone would actually ask why we should want to make few(or the fewest possible) errors. — creativesoul
I'm not sure I understand your way of framing the principle as an auction.Suppose as given a phenomenon we wish to explain. Ockham's razor is a widely recognized heuristic for choosing between competing explanations: choose the one that makes fewer ontological commitments.
Why this should be a reasonable principle is difficult to explain. I don't have an explanation, but a way of framing the issue that might lead to one, or might just kick the can down the road. — Srap Tasmaner
Since our time is limited, and since cognitive and social resources are limited, it seems more reasonable to prefer the simplest account, all else equal. — Cabbage Farmer
I'm struggling to think of any other costs/ benefits apart from those that might involve the opinions of other about us. — Janus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.