Of corse it's just an aesthetic preference.

Preferring something for aesthetic reasons is a justification...

Hence Occam's Razor is justified.

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

Occams razor is based on the fact that truth/reason for something is often less extravagant, requires less reasoning, imagination and hop-scotching around than semi truths, or downright lies do.

The only thing you need to catch a liar is a rigorous enquiry, because to construct a continuous alternative narrative takes a lot of weighing, measuring, reasoning and accounting to prevent paradoxes and contradictions from revealing your lie.

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.

Preferring something for aesthetic reasons is a justification... — Banno

But simplicity and complexity are equally appealing. One can be just as beautiful as the other. There's no accounting for taste.

This is Islamic:



Scandinavian:

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

This makes sense to me.

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

If you look at the way your body maintains your blood pressure, it's pretty complex.



Are you saying that because this answer is complex, it must be wrong?

Indeed. It is a preference, and dependent on circumstance.

Methodologically the hypothesis with fewer assumptions is easier to work with. But it is not thereby true. So choosing the simplest hypothesis is an expression of an aesthetic favouring laziness....

Indeed. It is a preference, and dependent on circumstance. — Banno

So why the appeal of Occam's razor? What's the draw?

Are you saying that because this answer is complex, it must be wrong? — frank

No of course not. But biologists and physiologists occamed it up to isolate each component and see what happens when it's removed, or more is added, or what it reacts with and what they make.

In essence they deconstructed blood pressure into its individual parts so they could build the full picture of how it works in its entirety.

That isn't to say the full complex compound answer isn't correct but it's much harder to jump to that conclusion than to take a step by step approach.

Also, if you think the baroreceptor reflex is complex, there's the hormones, fluid volume/electrolyte balance as well to factor in before blood pressure reveals all of its cogs and wheels.

Methodologically the hypothesis with fewer assumptions is easier to work with. But it is not thereby true. — Banno

Agreed. A lot would depend on the assumptions used and their relative plausibility.

So choosing the simplest hypothesis is an expression of an aesthetic favouring laziness.... — Banno

There's more to it than that. The more assumptions, i.e. unproven data inputs, the more likely one of them is wrong.

So why the appeal of Occam's razor? — frank

Why not appeal of Occam's razor? Pick the pretty flower, pick the short hypothesis.

Are you saying that because this answer is complex, it must be wrong? — frank

This is a hay man or straw dog, or whatever you call it. It has nothing to do with the complexity of the system being described. it's the complexity of the unjustified inputs.

The more assumptions, i.e. unproven data inputs, the more likely one of them is wrong. — T Clark

Ah... an argument from statistics.

On the other hand, the hypothesis with the most assumptions is the most falsifiable. If, the more assumptions, the more likely that one of them is wrong, and if we ought prefer falsifiable hypotheses, we ought prefer the more complex ones. Hence falsificationists ought reject parsimony. :wink:

But further, determining the number of assumptions is a question of interpretation, subject to how the hypothesis in question is expressed. For example, is that this thread is in English one of the assumptions of this argument? Where do we draw the line between what is a relevant hypothesis and what isn't?

That is, even expressed in statistical terms, the preference is aesthetic.

Why not appeal of Occam's razor? Pick the pretty flower, pick the short hypothesis. — Banno

I guess as long as that's the spirit in which people embrace Occam's razor, it's ok. Like: eeny meeny miny moe, pick the theory whose complexity is low.

Cute. :grin:

Edit: 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.

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

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.

That is, even expressed in statistical terms, the preference is aesthetic. — Banno

I don't disagree that using statistical reasoning is not a strong argument.

There are two sorts of responses to statistical arguments. The one looks at the quantity of data and the complexity of the analysis and thinks "Gee, this must be important". The other thinks "Fuck, here we go again..."

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

I think I've seen it used as a reason to discard a thesis. I think you agree that it doesn't provide a justification for that. It's a bad idea to play favorites prior to getting experimental results. If you can't experiment, you have to be satisfied with not knowing.

There are two sorts of responses to statistical arguments. The one looks at the quantity of data and the complexity of the analysis and thinks "Gee, this must be important". The other thinks "Fuck, here we go again..." — Banno

Yep. And admitting to not knowing is a good thing to do.

Very true

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 be frank, Frank, I think it's equally important to view it as a holistic system and to explore its individual parts in isolation.

Just as its important to review the performance of a car as a unit - all of its functions used in test drives, as it is to examine each part: the brake system, the engine, the catalytic converter, chassis, aesthetic features, electronics etc.

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.

Both have their place in the knowledge of any subject.
It's a matter of scope. Specialists have a narrow particular scope and expertise in one area whilst others deal with the holistic/general overview.
Both are required to explore the knowledge of any discipline.

Occams razor is a useful approach. But it only elucidate part of the information.

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

Occam disagreed, sort of. He believed that there are no "compound things.". He would say the "car" only exists as an idea that humans use to group things for their purposes. There is no car out there in the world, only isolated, individual things. He was a kind of atomist, or proto-nominalist.

This is the basis of his belief that explanations must be as simple as possible. If you start explaining things in complex terms, using compound objects, you're really just off in the realm of imagination, not describing the world as it is.

Do you agree with that?

it actually has no justification. — frank

Yet...

the basis of his belief that explanations must be as simple as possible. If you start explaining things in complex terms, using compound objects, you're really just off in the realm of imagination, not describing the world as it is. — frank

Yep

Occam’s Razor: the principle that says the fewer ways there are to make a mistake, the easier it is to correct it.

I’d accept that principle.

KISS?

Yep. But be careful; I hear Gene and the guys are particularly defensive regarding their brand.

:grin:

Well, I suppose that arguing, instead of Occam's razor per se, that one should present a hypothesis or theory in the simplest available manner is better than presenting such information in a convoluted or inflated way.

One can say that gravity pulls apples to the ground.

Or one can say that given the universe we are an in, and the planet we find ourselves in, plus the properties of apples all combine such that it follows, that in the vast majority of circumstances, gravity on Earth pulls apples to the ground given ordinary conditions, because a hurricane might complicate the process.

Both are true, one is simpler. But sometimes we cannot simplify more than we'd like.