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. — Manuel

I don't know, Schopenhauer said Kant intentionally obscured some of his writing to avoid criticism from the church. And was it Derrida who supposedly said that the only way to make it as a French philosopher is to convolute your writing?

It's likely, or at least it wouldn't surprise me. But one can explain the basics of Kant without much trouble.

That was Foucault. Derrida claimed that he never fell into that temptation to write more obscurely for the sake of profundity. Clearly, he wasn't being honest.

:up:

In science, and especially data science and machine learning, Occam's razor is often misunderstood to be an a priori principle. This can encourage biased and erroneous inductive inferences, typically in cases of Bayesian model selection or Bayesian averaging with respect to a family of different theories, where the 'prior' confidence assigned to the predictions of a particular theory is taken, without justification, to be inversely proportional to it's 'description length'.

The above principle can only be applied non-controversially when a supplementary argument is given to justify why the theories are described in the way they are, for otherwise the description lengths assigned to each candidate theory is arbitrary. E.g a diagonal straight line is only 'simpler' than a diagonal sine wave when the coefficients of both lines are given in terms the Standard Basis corresponding to the Cartesian axes. But the opposite is true when both lines are described in terms of a Fourier basis.

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. — Manuel

Which goes towards explaining what Occams razor actually is; the principle of Occam's razor is our post-hoc revision of our linguistic conventions in response to our observations, so that our language encodes our most validated theories as efficiently as possible. Occam's razor shouldn't be mistaken for an a priori principle of inference, rather it should be understood to be a prescription for revising our linguistic conventions so that our past-conditioned expectations are easier to communicate and describe.

I see what you are saying, I'd add that it's not linguistics solely, but also conceptual. By expressing ourselves in a clear and concise manner, the information or data we are presenting is more easily understood than in some other, more technical or obscure manner.

Understanding is not limited to language, I don't think. But, point taken.

Occam's razor is about reducing the likelihood for error. The fewest unprovable assumptions is best. The fewest entities is best.

The hitch seems to have been forgotten though...

...so long as there is no loss in explanatory power, the simplest explanation is the best.

It's not just about aesthetics. It's about methodological approach. It's about warrant. It's about further discriminating between competing explanations.

It's not an ontological claim, it's a methodological suggestion. If we have two explanations and both work, we might as well use the simpler one...that's just easier. But no one has to follow this suggestion.

It's not an ontological claim, it's a methodological suggestion. If we have two explanations and both work, we might as well use the simpler one...that's just easier. But no one has to follow this suggestion. — Bylaw

Sounds reasonable.

Occam's razor is about reducing the likelihood for error. The fewest unprovable assumptions is best. The fewest entities is best.

The hitch seems to have been forgotten though...

...so long as there is no loss in explanatory power, the simplest explanation is the best. — creativesoul

It makes sense that the fewer barriers to something being true, the more likely it is to be true.

It is commonly used against belief in god, but I don't see how there are any barriers to something that has no cause.

It makes sense that the fewer barriers to something being true, the more likely it is to be true. — Down The Rabbit Hole

That does not make much sense to me. What sort of barriers are you referring to?

Occam's razor is commonly used against the explanation "God did it".

From the title of this post alone, all discovery becomes mute, annulled, voided. Truly a stark testament of the times in which we live where despite everyday use of things by those who could not reproduce said things themselves on request shamelessly use to profane the very notion of possibility itself. It truly boggles the mind.

On can chose not to accept it but solving anything non-trivial, one will bear it in mind. Was it Einstein that said “as simple as possible but not simpler”. Aesthetics sometimes is rather the opposite, guys wanting to make problems harder than they are because they like to solve intricate problems,

That does not make much sense to me. What sort of barriers are you referring to?

Occam's razor is commonly used against the explanation "God did it". — creativesoul

As you've alluded to, Ockham's Razor has a qualification that "all things being equal" the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

Let's say, just for the purpose of my argument, the evidence for a panpsychist and emergent view of consciousness is equal. There would be nothing getting in the way of panpsychism developing, as it has always been there, but for emergence there are barriers, such as the possibility that inanimate matter would never reach awareness, and further that consciousness would not be preferable for evolution (which many scientific tests are hinting at). There will be other barriers I can't even imagine to inanimate matter somehow becoming aware. It would be simpler to say it has always been there, and thus has no barriers to it becoming reality. The panpsychism has to have always been there for there to be symmetry with my argument about God.

All things being equal, God as always existing would have no more barriers, and is no less likely to exist than universe/s always existing.

Perhaps, but it does invoke an extra entity.

It's based in terms of probabilities, IIRC. So, the simplest hypothesis is not guaranteed to be true, but it is more likely to be true. In other words, if you were a betting man, then that is the way that you should be betting. At least as a general rule.

So, the simplest hypothesis is not guaranteed to be true, but it is more likely to be true — Xanatos

Why?

It's quite simple really, he lied. — Numerius Negedius

:100: