Do you agree with Occam's razor?

[Neapolitan Ice Cream]

Attributed to William of Ockham, a 14th-century English philosopher and theologian, it is frequently cited as Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, which translates as "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity",[1][2] although Occam never used these exact words. Popularly, the principle is sometimes paraphrased as "The simplest explanation is usually the best one."[3]

It's not infallible. Sometimes life throws a curve ball. But more often than not, I think Ockham was on to something.

 

[DisneyOma]

Is it Occam or Ockham?

 

[Genie+]

Can be used in tandem with

Hanlon's razor
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Result: Yes there’s likely a simple explanation and no, mankind is not always out to get you.

 

[Neapolitan Ice Cream]

Is it Occam or Ockham?

It can be either.

 

[robinb]

Yes

 

[TLSnell1981]

Yep!

 

[PollyannaMom]

Do you agree with Occam's razor?​

In some scenarios, yes. In some, no.

"Yes" example - you have a slight stomach ache. It's more likely the pint of ice cream you just ate (simple answer) than stomach cancer (complex answer).

"No" example - there is a bully in school. It's more likely he has been repeatedly treated badly at home (complex answer) than that he was "born evil" (simple answer).

 

[PollyannaMom]

Hanlon's razor
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

I love this one! - It might not always be true, but I'm definitely a happier person believing the best of people.

 

[sam_gordon]

Considering Occam's Razor uses the word "usually" and not "always", absolutely YES.

 

[_19disnA]

It's a bit like the stuff 'predicted' by Nostradamus. If you write something vague enough, people can twist the meaning around AFTER something has happened to make is seem as though it applies.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Not really, but it sure is a useful premise to keep people from snooping or thinking too hard.

 

[ronandannette]

Absolutely - yes. I troubleshoot for a living and in the vast majority of cases, routine causes are at the root of problems. It's always those we investigate first and once in a while, that's a waste of time, but not very often.

Not really, but it sure is a useful premise to keep people from snooping or thinking too hard.

For practical, boots-on-the-ground problems, it really isn't. Most issues, even the ones that seem rather complex, boil down to being pretty mundane, no matter how hard you think about them.

 

[Sweettears]

Is it Occam or Ockham?

Officially it is Occam

 

[LuvOrlando]

Absolutely - yes. I troubleshoot for a living and in the vast majority of cases, routine causes are at the root of problems. It's always those we investigate first and once in a while, that's a waste of time, but not very often.

For practical, boots-on-the-ground problems, it really isn't. Most issues, even the ones that seem rather complex, boil down to being pretty mundane, no matter how hard you think about them.

You don't think this short cut allows some awful things to fester though?

Like, "Shame that kid just fall down the steps again, it happens a lot but said so, shame the kid is so awfully clumsy."

I get why people prefer simple, I just think it is a way to sidestep a great many things that suit a great many people just fine:/

 

[sam_gordon]

I get why people prefer simple, I just think it is a way to sidestep a great many things that suit a great many people just fine:/

It's not that people PREFER simple, it's just often the simple solution that fixes the problem. Why do you think the first step from most tech supports is "did you turn it off and back on again" (unplug/plug)? That solves a LOT of problems.

Now, if the same problem keeps happening, then you go a little deeper.

Using your example of someone falling down the stairs, did they trip? Were they pushed? If they tripped, was it on something that needs to be fixed? Is this the first time it's happened to them? If not, then look deeper.

But yes, much more often than not, a simple solution is probably the best.

 

[KVH]

Technically, it is not a solution in and of itself. It's been vastly oversimplified in modern times. What it really means is that, by reducing the number of variables, you can more easily determine whether a hypothesis is valid. If not, you can then expand or contract or add or delete variables in order to establish a statement which is true.

 

[lovesmurfs]

Yes. One of my favorite books is Obvious Adams by Robert Updegraff -- it was written in 1914, but still resonates in that the best answers are usually the most obvious ones.

 

[ford family]

Officially it is Occam

The village where he was born in 1287 is Ockham making him William of Ockham.

ford family

 

[ronandannette]

You don't think this short cut allows some awful things to fester though?

Like, "Shame that kid just fall down the steps again, it happens a lot but said so, shame the kid is so awfully clumsy."

I get why people prefer simple, I just think it is a way to sidestep a great many things that suit a great many people just fine:/

I guess we'd see that problem differently. To me, the "simplest" assessment of that issue would first to look closely at the stairs and probably with that, see what (s)he keeps tripping over, so it can be fixed. My comments, here and upthread, are completely referring to practical, concrete problems, not anything metaphorical.

 

[sipnride]

Lacking any access to meaningful data on a problem, sure. But take medicine for example: data may be available that indicates a variety of symptoms point towards condition A, but there's a much smaller chance that it is condition B, which is more difficult to diagnose (complicated) but also much more serious/life threatening and treatable if detected early. Always assuming that it is condition A in this scenario would result in more people suffering/dying unnecessarily.

It's an oversimplification, but the point here is that there are definitely times when it's better to assume the possibility of a more complex explanation.