Occam's razor says that if we have a choice between a simple answer and a compound one, we should pick the simple one.
It's widely accepted even though it actually has no justification. It's acceptance seems to come down to its intuitive or aesthetic appeal. Is that enough? Or should we just reject it?
32m — frank
Occam's razor, Ockham's razor, or Ocham's razor (Latin: novacula Occami), also known as the principle of parsimony or the law of parsimony (Latin: lex parsimoniae), is the problem-solving principle that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".[1][2] It is generally understood in the sense that with competing theories or explanations, the simpler one, for example a model with fewer parameters, is to be preferred. The idea is frequently attributed to English Franciscan friar William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), a scholastic philosopher and theologian, although he never used these exact words. This philosophical razor advocates that when presented with competing hypotheses about the same prediction, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions,[3] and that this is not meant to be a way of choosing between hypotheses that make different predictions. — Wikipedia
The truth on the other hand is easy. It's natural and it sticks to basic straightforward path. It's not creative. It's factual. — Benj96
Are you saying that because this answer is complex, it must be wrong? — frank
Methodologically the hypothesis with fewer assumptions is easier to work with. But it is not thereby true. — Banno
So choosing the simplest hypothesis is an expression of an aesthetic favouring laziness.... — Banno
The more assumptions, i.e. unproven data inputs, the more likely one of them is wrong. — T Clark
In essence they deconstructed blood pressure into its individual parts so they could build the full picture of how it works in its entirety. — Benj96
We might add that it is worth noting that the choice of hypothesis is not final; we can modify that choice based on further data. So if a prettier flower comes along, we can drop the old one and pick the new one. Parsimony is one part of a method that involves ongoing interaction with each other and with the world, not the final determinate. — Banno
Is that the approach to things that works best for you? Breaking things down to simple parts?
The cardiovascular system needs to looked at as a whole because it's self regulating, as if each part is performing a duty to the whole. If you get lost in the details, you could miss the awesomeness of the whole thing. Maybe that's my aesthetic preference?
Never thought of it that way. — frank
To know something is to know how it behaves as a compound thing, as well as to understand the relationships between its individual components. If you dismantle a car and then put it back together, you're likely to "know what a car is" better than someone who has just driven a lot of them. — Benj96
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.