A Little Rant on Occam’s Razor

The general public has a completely incorrect view of Occam’s Razor. This is mostly due to the concept being continuously misused and misidentified in the media … movies, television shows, news shows, etc.

Occam’s Razor, the so-called Law of Parsimony, is generally misunderstood and misapplied by the vast majority of persons who do not work or specialize in the sciences – physical or otherwise. Most people take the Razor to mean that “the simplest explanation that fits all the facts is the most likely one to be correct.”  That is a far cry from its actual meaning.  The Razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate. In short, in the process of researching and solving a problem, you should start with the simplest explanations because they are generally the easiest to deal with, measure, and disprove. It is in fact nothing more than a bit of a heuristic conceit; it is a learning gimmick. It is not considered to be a principle of logic nor an integrated part of the scientific method.  If anything, it is inductive and generally circular in nature. It is nothing close to a natural law. It is in fact not a law of any kind. Other than giving students and novices a starting point, the value of the true Razor concept is rather limited.

Even if we examine the general public’s perceived definition of the Razor in terms of workability – “the simplest explanation that fits all the facts is the most likely one to be correct,” this too is of no help because the concept is rarely true in the sciences (particularly physics) at all. It may occasionally be true in anything, but it is seldom of use in anything more complicated than the study of traffic patterns. The truth of this concept is usually covered very thoroughly by the “201” level of most any type of university science curriculum. So, whether we are talking about the perceived definition of the Razor or the actual definition, if either truly is used as a definitive indicator of an extant condition – the result is most likely wrong, or at best – suspect.

Even when we move outside the arena of scientific endeavor, common sense and everyday experience should tell the average person that the simplest explanation is no more likely to be correct than is the most complicated explanation. My experience tells me that in this complicated world, the simplest explanation is usually dead wrong. But I’ve noticed that the simplest explanation usually sounds right and is far more convincing than any complicated explanation could ever hope to be.

While it is always true that complex things are made up of a series of simple things, this does not mean that everything is effectively simple.