Occams Razor is not Infallible

OK, not entirely but it is oft mis-used as a defence to bolster an argument lest it shatter ones beloved beliefs.

ATS, if you haven't noticed is considered to be the premier league conspiracy discussion board.

The word we should focus on here is C-o-n-s-p-i-r-a-c-y.

We all know what a conspiracy is?

Would Occams Razor propose that there IS no cover up because it's too complicated? Occams Razor requires all things to be equal before selecting the simplest explanation.

There are Anti Razors.

i.e. Occams Razor is not a one way street, it's a logical proposal. That's all.

Occams Razor, suggests Atheism. There's a book on it somewhere that I am unable to locate at this time.

Controversial Aspects of the Razor....

Occam's razor is not an embargo against the positing of any kind of entity, or a recommendation of the simplest theory come what may[6]. (Note that simplest theory is something like "only I exist" or "nothing exists"). Simpler theories are preferable other things being equal. The other things in question are the evidential support for the theory[7]. Therefore, according to the principle, a simpler but less correct theory should not be preferred over a more complex but more correct one.

For instance, classical physics is simpler than subsequent theories, but should not be preferred over them because it is demonstrably wrong in some respects. It is the first requirement of a theory that it works, that its predictions are correct and it has not been falsified.

From Wiki

Suggested reading...

The Myth of Occams Razor

The Problem of Simplicity

Mod Edit: Trimmed down external source snippet.

[edit on 23-10-2007 by UM_Gazz]

Sometimes it's useful to brush up on that which we rely, to educate the uninitiated and to review the other side of the coin.

HUH? All Occam's Razor proposes is that the more complex a solution, the less likely it is to be true.

Is it a end all assumption, of course not but it is always a god place to start, and then if necessary work back from there.

This thread is pointless.

BTW it does not suggest atheism... it was proposed originally as a foil against increasingly elaborate Scholastic musings of the day. Scholastic as in the Scholastic philosopher's of the middle ages and their arguments such as how many angels etc.

It was an attempt to cut through all the bull crap. And it is still good for that.

Originally posted by grover
It was an attempt to cut through all the bull crap. And it is still good for that.

Agreed. My point is only that it isn't the be all and end all every time it is thrown out there... and it is useful to be aware at all times of more than one way.

Most know what it means, are they aware of opposing opinions?

Yes, you do have it all wrong. Occam's Razor actually SUPPORTS a lot of conspiracy theories. Occam's Razor does not support ALL simple explanations, only the simple explanations that can explain all of the observed data.

Let's take on 9/11, for example.

The official story does not explain all of the observed data. It does not explain UBL's lack of a speedy admission of responsibility, does not explain the suspicious stock trades, does not explain the evidence of controlled demolition, so on and so forth ad nauseum.

It would not survive Occam's Razor.

What is interesting, however, is that neither space-based weapons or holograms survive Occam's Razor. They explain nothing that a simpler theory does not, therefore they are most likely false.

Originally posted by uberarcanist
Occam's Razor does not support ALL simple explanations

I didn't think that's what I was saying.

Originally posted by uberarcanist
Let's take on 9/11, for example.

The official story does not explain all of the observed data. It does not explain UBL's lack of a speedy admission of responsibility, does not explain the suspicious stock trades, does not explain the evidence of controlled demolition, so on and so forth ad nauseum.

It would not survive Occam's Razor.

That's the sort of thing I was getting at.

EDIT: Perhaps I should clarify. I rarely see it used to support a conspiracy, only to refute one. Hence the two way street. I see how the OP comes across, kind of a mixed message, Thanks for helping me with that.


[edit on 23/10/07 by Prote]

Originally posted by uberarcanist
Yes, you do have it all wrong. Occam's Razor actually SUPPORTS a lot of conspiracy theories. Occam's Razor does not support ALL simple explanations, only the simple explanations that can explain all of the observed data.

Let's take on 9/11, for example.

The official story does not explain all of the observed data. It does not explain UBL's lack of a speedy admission of responsibility, does not explain the suspicious stock trades, does not explain the evidence of controlled demolition, so on and so forth ad nauseum.

Evidence of controlled demolition?

What is interesting, however, is that neither space-based weapons or holograms survive Occam's Razor. They explain nothing that a simpler theory does not, therefore they are most likely false.

Please explain.

reply to post by NRen2k5


I'm not even going down that road, I'll bet you've read the arguments on both sides and your mind is permanently made up.

Oh no. Anyone who sees a ufo is immediately demonized by the fabled 'occum razor'. It is an all encompassing truth modality wielded by the only true enchanters of this site. All others are heretics and loonies. Get used to it. The wielders will attempt to shred you. But you know the truth. Carry on.

Funny how dirt eating satanist god damning heretics could be so bloody sure of anything. Funny indeed.

reply to post by jpm1602


It's just grossly misused. When used correctly, it can be one of the conspiracy theorist's greatest friends.