Talk:Occam's razor/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Why is this not Ockham?

Title: Occam's razor

First sentence: Ockham's razor (sometimes spelled Occam's razor)...

If it's SOMETIMES spelled Occam and implied that the proper term is Ockham- then why the hell is the title Occam's razor? -sorry_I_don't_know_how_to_work_wikipediaman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.201.163.138 (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Science and Scientific Method Section are weak

The science and scientific method section are weak on a number of counts.

First, there are no explicit references, and only a few implicit references.

Second, the under-determination problem is largely theoretical and greatly exaggerated. In practice, there are usually only a small number of theories under debate at the same time in a given field, and it is a rare event when Occam's razor rather is used or needed to arbitrate. Repeatable experiments are the ultimate arbiter in scientific matters, and Occam's razor only enters to choose a temporary preference when the experimental data is ambiguous. In addition, Occam's razor only yields a preference until new experiments are designed and carried out to resolve the ambiguities in earlier data. In the history of science, Occam's razor is used rarely, and usually expresses nothing more than a temporary preference between competing theories.

Third, the Ptolemaic and Caloric models were abandoned primarily on the basis of contradictory evidence from repeatable experiments and observations, rather than Occam's Razor. (Science later showed that there is no preferred reference frame, only reference frames where the calculations are easier for a given system.) Of the three examples, only the Aether can be said to have been rejected on the basis of parsimony. However, even here, the Aether model that gets rejected is the revised, complex theory resulting from adjustments to account for the Michelson-Morley results, rather than the original Aether theory that was rejected outright on the experimental basis of the Michelson-Morley experiment. (One might also note that in quantum electrodynamics, the vacuum is not pure nothingness, but takes on somewhat of a role as a medium.)

Finally, it is not sufficiently clear that while Occam's razor is a useful idea in science, it is not an arbiter of scientific validity of comparable importance with repeatable experiment. No refutation of a theory with Occam's razor will ever be as compelling as a refutation via a repeatable experimental result.Michael Courtney (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• The only use of Ockham's razor in science I am aware of is as a lame way to cover up intuition. Sure it is all fine and good that Einstein or Newton claimed to have some sort of principle of simplicity that purportedly they used to come up with their theories, but the problem with that is it is hardly an effective principle if a comparison is made with all those that failed while applying the very same principle. It matters not how the explanation is obtained. Dreams and dumb luck are just as valid but neither dreams nor dumb luck are considered some important principle of science. The advocates of Ockham's razor are almost religious in their devotion to the supposed importance of the "principle". When it comes to science it is a dud but I have no doubt that it is some very crucial principle of philosophy. Gkochanowsky (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Quotes

Note that "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem" was not written by Ockham himself, this can easily be misinterpreted by the current text, i also think he should be honoured with some of his actual quotes here..

Removed note

I removed the note that claimed that Occam's principle wasn't always true. Because some theories are better even though they have more complexity.. "E.g. Ptolemy vs. modern cosmology, Four elements vs. modern chemistry." This ignores the qualifications included in Occam's razor. He said there should not be more entities than necessary, and in these the more accurate theories need more entities. Comment is original research too.--Bkwillwm 00:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Length

Sometime in October, some-one tagged the article as being too long. I don't see any discussion here or any explanation of why they thought it was too long. The article is not too long, according to Wikipedia guidelines. Hence, I have removed the tag. Johntex\^talk 18:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think this article may use some influence from Occam's Razor - there is an over plurality of content to justify the "necessity" (meaning). Take the history out of the meaning and leave the history to a separate part of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.134.214.165 (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstandings

Also, please note: The term "Razor" has NOTHING to do with a razor...consequently the statement in the article likening Occam's Razor to something that "shaves off" something is asinine at best!! Please remove this silly, wives tale-ish nonsense from this article!

Many people on this comment page don't get occam's razor. Occam's razor doesn't say we shouldn't posit many entities, it says we shouldn't posit anymore than we need to. Please think about this before you post a complaint about something on the page.

This means for example that quantum physics does not "strike a blow" to occam's razor because quantum physics does not posit anymore entities than it has to. Really occam's razor is quite unobjectionable, for who would posit anymore entities than they had to. Also the "anti razors" mentioned on the main page are not really all anti razors because supporters of occam's razor would heartily agree that entities should be posited as much as is necessary, it's just unecessary entities which should not be posited.

-- YET ANOTHER DEFINITION OF OCKHAM'S RAZOR THAT WILLIAM OF OCKHAM NEVER WROTE.

-- Couldn't Ockham's razor be understood as a definition of 'good' or 'best' in 'good solution' or 'best solution'? After all for any phenomenon a myriad of valid explanations can be given. But only a few are "satisfycingly" (cf. Herbert_Simon) comprehensible for the human mind. (And only one of them can be expected to be the best comprehensible so.) Then the razor only supplies a criterion for selecting from alternative explanations.

--- Perhaps Ockham's razor is used in that way. But as described it sounds like nothing more than interjecting a high faulting term to justify what is essentially personal preference. You are also making the assumption that human beings could express and consider all possible explanations. But if best comprehension is the criterion of preference embodied in Ockham's razor then for theists it is a justifiable philosophical reason for preferring god as the most comprehensible explanation of reality because for such people that profess belief in god it is the most comprehensible explanation. I am glad though that science has much better criteria of preference than this lame philosophical principle. -- Gkochanowsky (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"....it sounds like nothing more than interjecting a high faulting term...."

Did you mean to say "high-falutin' " ? 24.6.66.193 (talk) 10:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

'....But only a few are "satisfycingly" ... comprehensible' They must be very few indeed because I have yet to meet one I have been "satisfyced" with. Myles325a (talk) 05:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

appearance has two meanings

the teleological argument credits the appearance of design and order in the universe to supernatural intelligence

This could be misread as saying that design and order appeared at some point in time, rather than saying that those who wish to see design and order can find evidence to support that position. Is there a better wording? Regards, Ben Aveling 11:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

much better page

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html

I found this page a much better explanation from this mathematics dept. A couple of lessons I'm sure can be learned here, in terms of flow. There are also contradictions, like they say Einstein may not have said what is attributed at the bottom of the page. Also, what has this got to do with the Golden mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.145.196.7 (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Razors should be used regularly

But is it not used for cutting the Standard Model. We are forced to hear about Dark energy, Dark matter and what else, in order to save the Big Bang Cosmology. So this razor works when needed. Nothing scientific, in the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.103.38.68 (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You should read the part of the article where Einstein attacks Occam's razor, Occams razor exposes a fatal flaw in Relativity and much of modern physics. That they are irreducibly complex and this suggests another unknown layer of theory that is not yet solved. Lucien86 (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Consistent spelling

While both spellings (Occam and Ockham) are accepted, it seems to me that only one should be used for the article, with exceptions being made for direct quotations and such. In some instances, both spellings are used within the same sentence for no apparent reason. Yuck. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Move to Ockham's razor

Ockham's razor is named after William of Ockham, popular misspellings notwithstanding (be they in scientific or historical literature, or otherwise).

Lots of things are named after people but end up being spelled slightly differently than the original name. We go by the name that has the most use and is most widely accepted. Like it or not, that's Occam. DreamGuy (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Which brings up one of my favorite .signature -- Occam can be spelled either Occam or Ockham. The encyclopedia Britanica prefers the latter. Matt Childress August 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.174.254.15 (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's kinda funny that advocates of Occam's razor think the simplest thing to to do is to fall back on convention rather than spelling the name correctly. Gkochanowsky (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Original research

This is quite a good article, but it badly needs citations. Someone has written a lot of text from their general understanding, but in an encyclopedia we need to be able to track down sources for statements. A good example of this in the article is in the Golden Mean section which begins: "Some other thinkers believe that..." Which other thinkers are we talking about? How should we know. What do we say to someone who says "prove it". The variations section is particularly in need of attention in this regard, as the various variations are strung together by reactions from the author. We need reactions from verifiable sources instead if that material is to remain. This entry can't just be an essay. It must be a report on citable sources. -- cmh^TC 13:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Occam's Sword

I'd like to appeal the decision to delete the link from Occam's Razor at wikipedia to Occam's Sword at wikinfo. Fred Bauder, in 2004, allowed me to have it there and I'd like to keep it. It has already been restored once and subsequently deleted again. (Not by me) I reviewed the policy and guidelines for external links and you User:DreamGuy have acted within those guidelines. However, there is also policy and guidelines (albeit ambiguous) for links to sister projects at Wikipedia:Wikimedia Sister Projects that "Encourages" links between wikipedia and other sister projects. I would like to appeal this deletion on the basis of those guidelines, the relevance of Occam's Sword to Occam's Razor and Fred Bauder's previous decision to allow it. [Occam's Sword] subsumes Occam's Razor in the sense of situating it within the broader context of 5 other propositions that all share the same explanatory basis in the conservation of matter and energy. User:Bert Carpenter aka Albert P. Carpenter 00:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see the link as being at all encyclopedic. DreamGuy (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well obviously I'm sorry you feel that way. So, no offense intended, but I would like to get a third party opinion on this issue. Bert Carpenter (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, Wikiinfo is not a sister project of Wikipedia. See: Wiki and Wikipedia sister projects. Further: links to external wikis are to be avoided WP:EXT, and I can't see how the link in question provides anything of significance to the article, though I might (of course) be wrong. Keep up the good work! Martinor (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Martinor, I have some questions I hope you will answer:

1. If wikinfo is not a sister project what is it?
2. I was told, in 2004, that wikinfo was a sister site to Wikipedia is there a difference between a sister site and a sister project?
3. Why is Fred Bauder's, formerly on the arbitration commitee, decision to allow a link no longer relevant?
4. Is this the last resource I have in this process ( of deciding whether or not there can be a link) or can I appeal for mediation?
5. Is that advisable or is this an open and shut kind of case?

Thank you for responding so quickly. User:Bert Carpenter 00:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Fred Bauder is just one person. He can't make decisions all by himself that everyone else has to follow from then on. I really think mediation for such a simple thing as one link is overkill, but you can try whatever you want to try. Unless there's an official ruling prohibiting all wikinfo links or demanding a link to any wikinfo links with an associated Wikipedia article, I don't think there'll be any official ruling, per se. It's just what a consensus of editors looking at the page says. If you haven't tried WP:THIRD, WP:RFC or WT:External links, you might try one of those to get more eyeballs here. I'll go with whatever the consensus decides.DreamGuy (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanx for your respose DreamGuy. I think I'll just end it here and conceed to your decision. Thanx 04:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Bert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.78.194.182 (talk)

Copernican model example of application of Ockham's razor?

The article makes this claim:

The Copernican model (as expanded by Kepler) was able to account for this motion by displacing the Earth from the center of the solar system and replacing it with the sun as the orbital focus of planetary motions while simultaneously replacing the circular orbits of the Ptolemaic model with elliptical ones. In addition the Copernican model excluded any mention of the crystalline spheres that the planets were thought to be embedded in according the Ptolemaic model. In a single stroke the Copernican model reduced by a factor of two the ontology of Astronomy.

The Copernican model was not considered to be incongruous with crystalline spheres either. Kepler's earlier work "Mysterium Cosmographicum" basically equated the orbits of the planets with spheres. The other thing to add to this supposed simplicity of the Copernican model over the Ptolemaic was that in order for the Copernican model to predict the planetary ephemerides at least as well as the Ptolemaic system Copernicus had to include epicycles. When Copernicus published his "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium" he had about as many epicycles as Ptolemy. Some have said that it was more complicated than the Ptolemaic system. Kepler's model doesn't have any epicycles. To claim that Kepler "expanded" the Copernican model is a very big stretch. He outright replaced it with his own model and rules. And of course this lame reduction of the rich history of our understanding of the solar system to a stupid philosophical incantation called Ockham's razor completely ignores that one could get the correct ephemerides by adopting Kepler's scheme but still place the earth at the center. A shift of the frame of reference. How simple is that? And based on their primitive ideas of motion a much simpler fit because a moving earth now begs all sorts of questions that the simple model doesn't even begin to address. I have no idea why philosophers wish to contend that this is an example of the application of Ockham's razor. It is however yet another fine example of how magical philosophical incantations lull the user into thinking they know what they are talking about. Ockham's has at best only a peripheral use in science and mostly as a lame justification for intuition.

It is also interesting to note that apparently at the time the conflict was at its peak Ockham's razor was not considered to be a good justification by Galileo. He lampoons the use of it by Simplico in his dialog. That is because simplicity is always in the eye of the beholder and two different people may differ on what is simple based on their own biases. Gkochanowsky (talk) 22:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Again: Copernican model example of application of Ockham's razor?

I moved the discussion below, on the Copernican model, from the main page to here. -- Crowsnest (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

In the first example, the Copernican model is said to have been chosen over the Ptolemaic due to its greater simplicity. The Ptolemaic model, in order to explain the apparent retrograde motion of Mercury relative to Venus, posited the existence of epicycles within the orbit of Mercury. The Copernican model (as expanded by Kepler) was able to account for this motion by displacing the Earth from the center of the solar system and replacing it with the sun as the orbital focus of planetary motions while simultaneously replacing the circular orbits of the Ptolemaic model with elliptical ones. In addition the Copernican model excluded any mention of the crystalline spheres that the planets were thought to be embedded in according the Ptolemaic model. In a single stroke the Copernican model reduced by a factor of two the ontology of Astronomy.

This statement conflicts with other information presented in Wikipedia. Specifically the claims that Copernicus did not assume crystaline spheres, the title and content of the book "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium" is specifically about his take on those spheres. And if Ockham's razor was used as an argument at the time it was to favor Ptolemy over Copernicus. In his book "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium" he included about the same number of epicycles as the Ptolemy model. It definetly was not epicycle free. That is because circular orbits by themselves do not work and epicycles were the approximation of the day. It wasn't until Kepler that there were good scientific reasons for assuming that the sun was the center of the solar system but not based on some lame philosophical principle but on superior predictive power in determining the ephemerides. However this is an excellent example of the myth of the so-called philosophical principle but should not be taken as anything representative of what actually happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.45.234.178 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 15 February 2009

Examples?

I checked on just two of the "examples" in that article and they are more like myths than historical examples.

According to the Caloric theory of heat, heat is a weightless substance that can travel from one object to another. This theory arose from the study of cannon boring and the invention of the steam engine. It was while studying cannon boring that Count Rumford made observations that conflicted with the Caloric theory and he formulated his mechanical theory to replace it. The Mechanical theory eliminated the Caloric and was ontologically simpler than its predecessor.

This example contradicts other Wikipedia articles that have much better scholarship than this apologetic for Ockham's Razor. The Caloric theory of heat had great success in making predictions and was subsumed into the kenetic theory since the equations of the caloric theory could be derived from the kenetic treatment. The caloric substance was identified as energy. This is not an example of one explanation being preferred over another by reason of Ockham's Razor.

During the 19th century, physicists believed that light required a medium of transmission much as sound waves do. It was hypothesized that a universal aether was such a medium and much effort was expended to detect it. In one of the most famous negative experiments in the history of science, the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to find any evidence of its existence. Then when Einstein constructed his theory of special relativity without any reference to the Aether this subsequently became the accepted view, thus providing another example of a theory chosen in part for its greater ontological simplicity.

This is a non-example example. At the time Ockham's Razor was not the reason used to prefer Special Relativity. In fact initially the theory was thought to be wrong because it conflicted with published experimental results. SR prevailed because over time Einstein's explanation had greater predictive power because among other things it postulated the equivalence of matter and energy (E = mc2) which led to the nuclear age. Ockham's Razor played no role. And Einstein's purported version of Ockham's Razor is not the same as that stated by Ockham. He wasn't using the same principle but his own version which he never attributed to Ockham.

Has anyone else researched the so-called examples? Most of them could also be philosophical myths. Gkochanowsky (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There does not seem to be any objection against the critique on the examples, as given in this section and the previous two (starting in Sep 2008, half a year ago). My suggestion would be that you improve the article yourself: rewrite or remove the examples, add better ones, in a neutral encyclopedic style. Please add reliable sources for verifyability, which are missing at the moment. I could do it myself, but my priorities with regard to WP editing are elsewhere. -- Crowsnest (talk) 11:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Better examples would be a problem, because Ockham's Razor doesn't play much of a role in science other than as justification for intuition. Because in science there is a better method for preferring one explanation over another. Experiment on nature. Gkochanowsky (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but if two theories explain the experimental data just as well (a prerequisite for Occam's razor), you have to decide, you have to choose. Then evaluation of the theories on aspects like "beauty", "simplicity", "generality", "expandability", etc. become important. And then Occam's razor might be used (afterwards), as one of the criteria for the justification of the choices you make with regard to preferring one theory over the other.

I am not aware of that ever happening. What happens is usually much more complicated. It is not like some sort of simple competition where a winner must be chosen so they can get on with it. Such situations usually stimulate further research to try to sort it all out and either a difference in predictions is found or the explanations are found to be equivalent. Gkochanowsky (talk) 05:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. But as said: I am not an expert on this. And references are lacking in this whole Science and the scientific method section. So as long as there are no objections (verifiable by reliable sources) you can delete and change things you consider to be misleading: the proof is with the editor who inserts material. And if you insert new material, please add references in footnotes to back them up: see e.g. WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable sources, WP:CITE#Inline_citations. I also added a tag to this section, to state some of the issues with it. -- Crowsnest (talk) 10:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

And it depends on the subject: although general relativity can explain more than Newton's law of gravity, you still use the latter (or even simplifications with additional assumptions) if that is good enough for the description of the problem at hand.

But as said, I leave it up to you. And I am a layperson on the subject. -- Crowsnest (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is a good example because GR is still considered to be the better theory even though classical mechanics is "simpler" to use. Gkochanowsky (talk) 05:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure you are right about GR being a better theory. I mixed up qualifying a theory and making a (simplified approximate) model for a specific application, so please forget. -- Crowsnest (talk) 09:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

How can you say there has been no objection to these examples? I posted an objection to these examples in a section discussing the weaknesses of the scientific method section. Gkochanowsky's recent edits are sound and valid, though they need to have some citations added. It seems selective to delete Gkochanowsky's objections on the basis of lacking citations without also deleting the original statements on the same basis.

The Ptolemaic and Caloric models were abandoned primarily on the basis of contradictory evidence from repeatable experiments and observations, rather than Occam's Razor. (Science later showed that there is no preferred reference frame, only reference frames where the calculations are easier for a given system.) Of the three examples, only the Aether can be said to have been rejected on the basis of parsimony. However, even here, the Aether model that gets rejected is the revised, complex theory resulting from adjustments to account for the Michelson-Morley results, rather than the original Aether theory that was rejected outright on the experimental basis of the Michelson-Morley experiment. (One might also note that in quantum electrodynamics, the vacuum is not pure nothingness, but takes on somewhat of a role as a medium.)

Finally, it is not sufficiently clear that while Occam's razor is a useful idea in science, it is not an arbiter of scientific validity of comparable importance with repeatable experiment. No refutation of a theory with Occam's razor will ever be as compelling as a refutation via a repeatable experimental result.Michael Courtney (talk) 13:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You read me wrong: I said there was no objection against the critique given by 64.45.234.178 and Gkochanowsky in this and the previous two sections. I deleted edits (and in the previous section moved them to this talk page), because they were not in encyclopedic form, but read as a comparison with what is stated in other parts of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source to itself. Delete unsourced material as you think right and appropriate; or ask for references through e.g. {{fact}} tags. Add other examples, or critique on the (non) use of Occam's razor in science (but please add reliable secondary sources to proof them). -- Crowsnest (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I’m still not sure that there is some sort of equivalence of provenance here. The conflicting Wikipedia articles are better researched and referenced. As such if they conflict with a claim in this article I would think that they should take precedence if reference to credible third party sources is the gold standard. Certainly for the first example the conflicting Wikipedia article makes reference to Copernicus’s own work. Gkochanowsky (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You cannot use Wikipedia for the verification of itself, see WP:V#Wikipedia and sources that mirror Wikipedia. Of course you can use the reliable sources in these other articles if they back up the changes you want to make. As said before, erroneous parts in this article which cannot be backed up by reliable sources, may should be improved or removed. -- Crowsnest (talk) 09:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

And of course you can use templates, like Template:Further and Template:Main, to point to these other WP articles, if they directly back your position written in the article. -- Crowsnest (talk) 09:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead summary

The sentence: "To straightforwardly summarize the principle as it is most commonly understood, “The simplest explanation for a phenomenon is most likely the correct explanation."" is included in the lead, to use the wording as it is most commonly understood it really needs a citation. I also think that the simplest is worryingly easy to misinterpret, but it should stay if it is a quote as implied. 'Simple' in this context means "without unessential assumptions", but it is also commonly used to mean without complication. In an extreme; an 'uncomplicated' explanation of a tidal wave could be that the sea god is angry, but one without the unessential assumption of the existence of gods is very complex, try giving a one line explanation of plate tectonics (assuming is wasn't somthing else; asteroid, nuclear explosion, melting ice sheet...) That said I am struggling to think of a better word as purest and neatest don't work, and the my thesaurus is no help. --Nate1481 13:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

More informative synopsis [intro] sentence

Can someone who feels qualified please change the first sentence to reflect some gist of the razor? A lot of bots, etc. take the first sentence when people .wik <something> and knowing that Ockham was an Xth century whatever monk is not really what you're after when you point someone at the intro sentence.

Thanks in advance 86.141.178.190 (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

More overly labored examples of Ockham's use in science

The comparison of the principle of least action to Ockham's razor is so far fetched that it leads me to think that the authors of that section were looking for any excuse they could find to attribute anything that is scientific or mathematical to Ockham's razor. It borders on the religious. As if Ockham's razor is some holy principle. The principle of least action dates back to early Egyptian methods of surveying not some lame philosophical principle of the middle ages. Ockham's razor appears to be a philosophical black hole, dragging every independent idea on the planet below its inane event horizon. Gkochanowsky (talk) 08:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Irony

Am I the only one who finds the first few paragraphs of this article ironically complicated? Shouldn't it be simpler? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.216.130 (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Alas what you see is the tap dancing the must be performed to give this lame principle any credibility. 173.102.73.139 (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Apply Ockham to Occam

We have traditionally passed down to us the imperative phrase Father Ockham used: Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate. Something that is not now commonly understood is that this has a great English equal: "Just the facts." Literally translated in this context, Okham said, "Do not unnecessarily add [more/too much] to [the facts]."

It seems this article has got carried away with the stupid and completely inadequate transliteration about 'simplicity' and 'explanations'. Fr. Ockham was writing about the misapplication of scientific method to theology- he was saying that there was no need to belabour a point with unnecessary additions such as bias, prejudice or emotion.

He didn't ever say anything about simplest explanations. That should be re-phrased as being a common misreading of Occam's Razor.75.21.107.7 (talk) 06:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Since when has Occam's Razor been about 'just the facts'?

Near the top of the article it says:

To summarize the common understanding of the principle, "Of several acceptable explanations for a phenomenon, the explanation containing just the facts will do."

Shouldn't this rather say something like:

To summarize the common understanding of the principle, "Of several acceptable explanations for a phenomenon, the simplest explanation is probably the truest."

Suggesting this principal of applied simplicity asks for theories to be 'facts' is substantially misinterpreting it, and I have never seen it so represented. At the very least provide a reference for such misinterpretation, please! Karora 21:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see you did some reviewing--there is no "misinterpretation" as you say in any of this. See my comment below.75.21.156.77 (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• OK, reviewing the history a little further I can see this is a recent change from an unidentified user. I can also kind of see what they are getting at by replacing 'simplicity' with 'just the facts', but I can't agree that this is correct. I think the wording should rather be something along the lines of:

To summarize the common understanding of the principle, "Of several acceptable explanations for a phenomenon, the simplest is preferable, provided that it does not contradict the facts."

This seems to me to hit all the buttons. For example it doesn't imply we should all use a classic physics model rather than a relativistic one, or that the earth is flat, or anything else that contradicts observed facts. Karora 22:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well said, only dropped by to note that I was using "just the facts" as our common expression to clarify Ockham's genuine point. Not suggesting we actually use "just the facts" in the language, because Ockham was all about essential facts, as many cogent facts as possible, as deeply explored as possible, and listed in as orderly a fashion as possible...and no more. I think the true essence of Ockham is in pluralitas...sine necessitate.75.21.156.77 (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed this part of the "Religion" section

I removed the sentence that said "though this argument obviously ignores the need for a God to also have a 'first cause', therefore negating the so-called proof", because anyone who knows anything about philosophy knows that's just a dumb argument against the cosmological argument. Redsox7897 (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Now and then I play the role of Slowpoke around here...what exactly is a dumb argument against the cosmological argument? The statement you took out, or the Razor? And I wonder, furthermore, why there are any sentences dealing with God in the first place. Occam was about logic and utilitarian thought, even if he was a priest.76.195.81.239 (talk) 03:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion to change image description.

The Razor has nothing to do with our understanding of the solar system model. Instead, it comes from information gathered from the orbit of Io around Jupiter, and how it is delayed/accelerated dependent on time of year. Please correct, as I have no other ideas for examples. Thankyou.

Sorry this is incorrect, as Io was not known to William of Ockham who died in 1346, being discovered by Galileo in January 1610. Nick Beeson (talk) 12:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Syntax of physics example is incorrect I think

"For instance, classical physics is simpler than more recent theories; nonetheless it should not be preferred over them, because it is demonstrably wrong in certain respects." I don't think I understand the definition of "preferred" here. If you are talking about mechanics at non-relatavistic speeds Newtonian mechanics is still preferred. Maybe "accurate" would be better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.249.51.38 (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What Does Razor Mean?

I have been looking everywhere for an answer, but nothing seems to mention what "Razor" actually means. I of course understand it in context, but I have checked countless dictionaries and websites in vain to find a definition of "razor" which comes close to an kind of law or theory. Does anyone know why it is called "Occam's Razor?" LFStokols 08:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)LFStokols

See razor. It is just a metaphor – there is not a well-defined technical concept named "razor" of which Occam's is an instance. The point of the metaphor is that the razor is a device that cuts away unnecessary protruding stuff from the theory, similar to how an actual razor cuts away protruding stubble. Hanlon's razor is a pun on Occam's one. –Henning Makholm 10:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It seems obvious now that you say it. LFStokols 22:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)LFStokols

Apparently it's not so obvious (see "Misunderstands" section below)... I agree it's an important point, and one of the most obvious questions to ask (i.e. "why is it called Oc(/k)cam's razor?"). Even if there's disagreement as to where the 'razor' bit comes from, the arguments should be made. The razor as a metaphor to 'cut away excess complexities' arguement seems plausible, but the person in the "Misunderstands" section has a valid point, that the whole idea is not to posit these additional complexities in the first place! Can someone clear this up, or at least explain the arguments in the main article please??

I also could find no definition of "Razor" other than the above discussion, surely this should be described in the entries first paragraph? To me it seems more important than discussing the origin of "Occam" 194.106.46.76 (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Chris J Evans

Not sure if it helps for this discussion but in German it is called "Occams Messer" (i.e. Occam's knife), without the connotation of "shaving away" but instead with an emphasis on cutting or separating. DrCLN (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The "Religion" part of the article

Its just a copy-paste from here http://etd.unisa.ac.za/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-05062009-112611/unrestricted/thesis.pdf p.90 among other pages. It was clear by the style of citing (author:year). Im not proficient on whats needed to do in this case, i will seek restructuration or removal. 190.158.4.187 (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

added {{copyvio}} tag Jasy jatere (talk) 11:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye out for infringement. Evidence suggests that in this case the infringement may actually be reversed. First, note that the front page of the thesis is dated November, 2006. The third page is dated December 2006. This suggests publication after the latter of those dates. We take a chunk of page 90:

Some thinkers apply Occam's razor in the philosophy of religion to the existence of God; if the concept of God does not help to explain the universe, it is argued, God is irrelevant and should be cut away (Schmitt 2005:5). While Occam's razor cannot prove God's non-existence, it does imply that, in the absence of compelling reasons to believe in God, disbelief should be preferred.

In May of 2006, our article said the following (for convenience, I'm pasting without wikilinks):

In the philosophy of religion, Occam's razor is sometimes applied to the existence of God; if the concept of God does not help to explain the universe, it is argued, God is irrelevant and should be cut away (Schmitt 2005). While Occam's razor cannot prove God's nonexistence, it does imply that, in the absence of compelling reasons to believe in God, unbelief should be preferred.

We can trace the evolution of this passage. At the beginning of April, 2006, our article said this:

In the philosophy of religion Occam's Razor is sometimes used to challenge arguments for the existence of God: if there is no need for a "God" (to explain the universe), then the God construct is subject to elimination via Occam's Razor.

At the beginning of January, 2006, it said this:

In the philosophy of religion Occam's Razor is sometimes used to challenge arguments for the existence of God: if there doesn't seem to be a need for God (to explain the universe), then God most likely doesn't exist.

In August of 2005, it said, "In the philosophy of religion Occam's Razor is sometimes used to challenge arguments for the existence of God."

This material seems to have developed here naturally, and we seem to have had the seeds of it long before this thesis could have been published. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Bias of section:

This section is an editorial advocating using Occam's Razor to advance a particular viewpoint. The fact that citations are given do not alter the misuse of the section to promote a point of view and it violates Neutral Point of View policy. The last paragraph especially illuminates the editorial intent. To be germane, this section should be rewritten to talk about use of Occam's Razor in the field of philosophy of religion and to eliminate bias, give examples of both sides of the debate. ProfGiles (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is simply stating the use of Ockam's Razor in Philosophy of Religion. There is no debate of wether a god exists or not using Ockam's Razor. There are many articles explaining theories that support the existence of a god, this one does not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.211.126.40 (talk) 12:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

In terms of the existence of God, Occam's Razor merely specifies that in the absence of evidence, God is likely not to exist. There is no undeniable 'evidence' of a God (such as frequent and unexplainable supernatural phenomena - although what is, and what isn't, unexplainable supernatural phenomena, has changed over time) so introducing a factor for which there is no justifiable reasoning is an unnecessary and unneeded complication that may result in inaccurate conclusions.

Occam's Razor is merely a rule that may prove useful in developing a hypothesis, and in the words of W. E. Johns; 'Rules are for the guidance of wise men, and the blind obedience of fools' - meaning you need to know when and when not, to use it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.86.34 (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction on basing current theories on unknown data

I have added the following phrase in the article:

On the other hand science cannot work on the assumption that future, unknown data will support a complicated model when a simpler one explains all existing data, since that would lead to the contradictory conclusion that future, unknown data is already known.

I felt the need to mention that explicitly in a paragraph that seems to advance the idea that Occam's razor's merits are in fact dubious:

In the scientific method, Occam's razor, or parsimony, is an epistemological, metaphysical, or heuristic preference, not an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result. As a logical principle, Occam's razor would demand that scientists accept the simplest possible theoretical explanation for existing data. However, science has shown repeatedly that future data often supports more complex theories than existing data. Science tends to prefer the simplest explanation that is consistent with the data available at a given time, but history shows that these simplest explanations often yield to complexities as new data become available.

To me, this paragraph reads "yeah, Occam's razor is a cute little thing, but since history has shown it's wrong, we can go right ahead and ignore it". In other words, it's fair game to invent absurdly complex theories based on the assumption that data will appear in the future to support them – which it isn't, because you cannot know that data will appear in the future, or else you break the assumption that the unknown data is unknown.

My edit has been reverted, so I took the time to explain my reasoning here. Please return the courtesy before reverting again – or feel free to reword my phrasing if you agree in principle but don't like the way I put it. --Gutza ^{T T+} 13:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I was the one who reverted your data, sorry, I meant no disrespect and I should have added something on this talk page. I don't share the disparaging view of Ockham's Razor you describe. However, the problem with your statement is that it philosophically doesn't make any sense to me. Where is the contradictory conclusion? If two theories, complex theory A and simple theory B both account for the existing data adequately, why should we prefer B to A? This is the philosophical problem of justifying Ockham's razor. Both theories assume that future, unknown data will support them. Indeed, the one of the important functions of scientific theories is to make predictions about the future. Imagine the following relationship between two variables in some scientific observation:

x: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

y: 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Now, imagine that theory A is

A) y = x^7 -21x^6 +175x^5 -735x^4 +1624x^3 -1724x^2 +722x

and that theory B is

B) y = 2x.

Both account equally well for this relationship of numbers, but they make drastically different projections about the value of y for x=7. Why is it contradictory to prefer A to B? In what way does B suppose "future, unknown data is already known" in any way above and beyond B?

--Palthrow (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem with the revert, I simply defaulted to explaining myself upon getting reverted. First off, I agree that one of the most important functions of scientific theories is to make predictions about the future – moreover, I agree that a theory new theory really replaces an older one only when it matches new data existing theories don't match (such as here). However, I don't agree that in the example above theory A should be preferred, since that would mean the proponents of that theory implicitly claimed they knew the result for x=7 (which we obviously assume they don't know). Good example, by the way (seriously).

Accepting that the scientific method would agree with the equal sign you seem to put between theory A and theory B in your example would mean for instance that the Young Earth was a perfectly sound theory, sanctioned by the scientific community on par with modern evolution and cosmology. Indeed, instead of examining current data why not presume the existence of a God who created everything as to make it appear old? Well, I say because that would require the existence of a supernatural being we have no scientific evidence for. Your interpretation however accepts that based on the assumption that God will provide proof at a future time (even if that happens to be at the end of time or whatever).

Of course, we could now go down the path where "it's a matter of belief". But I don't want to turn this into a religious matter, I just used a different example to show why I think accepting unknown, future data on a belief basis contradicts Occam's razor's principle. --Gutza ^{T T+} 21:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Science does not assume that future experiments WILL support a more complex theory over a simpler one, but science is certainly open to the possibility that future experiments MIGHT support a more complex theory. Science is open-minded toward all physical theories that are consistent with currently available data and the tendency among scientists is to consider how to design experiments to discriminate between different theories that tend to explain existing data equally well. The recent addition as it is currently worded represents something of a strawman fallacy and, since it is unsourced, appears to be original research.Michael Courtney (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course science is open to evolve, I never meant to imply otherwise. My only beef here is related to the wording and the load of the following succession of phrases, as well as the corroborating support provided in the rest of that paragraph:

As a logical principle, Occam's razor would demand that scientists accept the simplest possible theoretical explanation for existing data. However, science has shown repeatedly that future data often supports more complex theories than existing data.

Again, the way I see it, this wording is very much supportive of an "anything goes" perspective which I strongly believe is in total opposition to what Occam's razor is in fact about. Yes, new evidence surfaces all the time. Yes, that new evidence topples old theories and validates new, more complex ones. That's the nature of the beast. But to start by assuming new data will topple existing theories and accept unnecessarily complex theories on the assumption that future data will validate them is, as I hinted above, a wildcard for any religious belief, or subjective belief in general, to be validated as a scientific "theory". Let's find a way to fix that and we'll all be a bit happier – I'm open to rewording that paragraph in a more neutral fashion, for instance. --Gutza ^{T T+} 22:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You all seem to require a bit of "Occam 101". He did not want unnecessary and useless detail thrown into theories, or into the scientific process. He wanted logic and fact. The discussion above, about future data, is exactly what Occam's Razor is all about: he would have laughed you guys out of town.76.195.81.239 (talk) 03:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Palthrow, you've made an error. In order for your math to hold, it must be "1764X^2" not "1724X^2". Shame on everyone else for not checking the math. Your point is nevertheless, well taken, Palthrow. Winick88 (talk) 07:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, oh well, it makes no difference to the point being made. It is trivially true that for any finite set of numbers mapped like this, there is an infinite number of equations that satisfy it. -- Palthrow (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even bother to read that equation, nevermind check it for errors becuase it's irrelavent. Rather than add the sentence that was reverted, I'd have edited the paragraph with which he disagreed as it has flaws in my opinion, since Ockam's razor is NOT dubious and says nothing about the future and shouldn't have to. I came here for another issue, so am now curious to see what the page says on this :)--Paddling bear (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Changing prediction to say solution.

when you have two competing theories that have the same solution, the simpler one is the better.

We changed "prediction" to say "solution". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.62.139 (talk) 04:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Creating solutions is mathematics, creating predictions is science. They are not the same. Mathematics uses the authority of proof through logic and science uses the authority of experiment on nature. Not really the same thing at all. And since the section was about the application of Ockham's to science and not mathematics it should say prediction. Also a scientific theory does't have to have a mathematical form, for example Darwin's ToE so "solution" does not apply. 207.30.5.99 (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not happy with the definition

Particularly, with the summary as "when you have two competing theories that have the same solution, the simpler one is the better." Even if it IS how this is popularly stated, the author should draw attention to it that this is an inaccurate and easily misunderstood way of putting the principle. If we always went with the simplest solution then most of our true, verified explanations would seem overcomplicated. This way of putting things can in fact be used as a justification for superstitious beliefs. This is not what the original statement meant however. What Occam's razor says is that we should discard circular ideas and add-ons, the ones that do not actively contribute to our explanation. For example, if you hear the wind blowing and it sounds like human speech, then the statement "it is a ghost" falls under Occam's razor because it contains many assumptions and implications about the afterlife etc. that have very little to do with the unexplained phenomenon at hand itself. Similarly the explanation that the changes in how air resonates are causing the voice might seem to include several similar pieces of information itself, however as these are all part of what we under stand to be true about our world, in that context, it requires very little leap of faith. Occam's razor does not say that "the simpler theory is the true one", rather what is says is "keep your theories simple". Can't we edit the article to be less misleading? - Zem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.195.201.91 (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• I am always amazed at the definitions of Ockham's Razor that William of Ockham never wrote. Does anybody have the courage to observe that it is simply a blank sheet upon which people write their prejudices? Gkochanowsky (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed the following from the Religion section

It must be noted, however, that in Ockham's time, the Church had tremendous influence on people and their ideas, and the Ockham's razor may be applied to today's subjects.

A clear attempt at discrediting the source through fallacious means (Circumstancial ad Hominem) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.14.242.184 (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV religion

I note there is a npov dispute and have to agree. Seems like original research, no reference, and where references are given, they are controversial and also they contradict one another, e.g. 72.2% vs 38%. Also, the data is applied dubiously - what does belief in a personal god have to do with relying on scientific explanations? It contains a tautology, ie most scientists prefer to rely on ... A scientist by definition should rely on ... regardless of belief in a personal or impersonal god. This whole section is in desparate need of a rewrite. If all the bias is removed, it will be a much cleaner and shorter version imho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.240.210.79 (talk) 08:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The concept of a personal god is a supernatural being that hears prayers and has the power to continuously affect the physical world. Invoking such intervention does not simplify the theory that the physical sciences provide to explain physical phenomena, and is therefore not justified using Ockham's razor. For that reason, it is relevant in this context. The data cited is not contradicting, it merely shows that while most scientists asked do not beleive in a god that can affect everyday life, many of them believe in a creator god that is no longer active. My point: The religion section is sound and unbiased. 83.249.215.241 (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Confusion regarding Ockam's razor?

I may be wrong, but I think there is something wrong with section 3.1 as it currently reads. My problem is the author seems to be arguing that ockham's razor delayed the discovery that DNA is the holder of genetic information and not proteins, b/c researchers at the time thought that the protein hypothesis was simpler. I want to say ockham's razor shouldn't be based on what we THINK is simpler, but what IS actually simpler. The writer kind of got into that by saying that one could argue retrospectively that DNA is simpler, but then didn't continue.

I hope I effectively communicated what I feel is the problem with this logic. In short, ockham's razor is not ineffective b/c what we THOUGHT was simpler turned out to be more complicated.

"There are many examples where Occam’s razor would have picked the wrong theory given the available data." Ok, but even assuming that, it doesn't seem a fault of ockham's razor, but of the researchers perspective of simplicity.

Lastly, despite what I said, I think the section is good.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grouphug (talk • contribs) 03:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC) 

Added Jargon template

The intro should be written in a manner that is easily understandable by people w/out prior knowledge of logic, philosophy, etc. Alcarillo (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It is defined as "the principle that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" and the conclusion thereof, that the simplest explanation or strategy tends to be the best one" and is explained as "When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question." Seems pretty straightforward to me, no jargon there. -- Palthrow (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

So... let me see if I got this straight... You are saying that the article on Occam's Razor it too complex, and that a simpler article would be more desirable? Lol -- Big Brother 1984 (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me ask both of you: do you have any prior knowledge of this term, and logic in general? If so, then it may seem a no-brainer what Occam's Razor means. Generally, these kinds of articles need a basic "who/what" starter that is easily understandable by the general public (ie people who probably don't know what "entities", "hypotheses", etc mean). For instance, the use of Latin is unnecessary in an opening statement because unless a reader understands Latin, it doesn't serve much purpose. These may help: WP:obvious, WP:tone WP:MTAA. Or not. Alcarillo (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, by all means, clean it up and simplify it. But definitely leave the template up. It makes the article. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the article somewhat misses the point of the Razor.

Firstly, I have always understood it to be a razor, not in the sense of paring away the bad, but in finely, I might say nicely, dividing competing theorems in order to select one or the other.

This brings me to a second point of critique: Namely that the author appears to embrace the position that their are 'true' theories, and there are fallacious theories, and Occam's Razor cannot distinguish between them. If this were so, it would indeed be the case, but it is worth pointing out that many dispute that any theory can be 'truth evaluable' and indeed that the truth in any absolute terms (without a priori assumptions having to be made) is in any way accessible to any theoretical model. Even in mathematics, Godel's theory hints at the necessity of making some kind of arbitrary assumptive basis..there is no THEN without an IF.

I personally think, that Occam was more in touch with the humility of that position than we are today: he recognised that in order to prevent what we would now call theory-bloat, it was important to strip down a theory to the bare bones that would actually represent the actuality being modelled in a causal way.

Note that the razor states 'beyond necessity'. If the actuality of the data does NOT fit the model, or another model of more complexity fits it better, the razor is not in play as it were. Reluctantly we admit of more entities, out of sheer necessity!

Some have maintained that the Razor is indeed a justification for a Creator, in that at a stroke this explains everything. Extremely simply. Of course it does, but sadly it has no predictive power whatsoever. Ergo it fails Popper's test for a scientific theory.

Actually, a Creator doesn't explain anything at a stroke or even simply. In fact, it immediately introduces the problem of "who created the creator?". Now we have need of an additional entity which violates the principle of economy.

So my basic complaint, is that the whole article is written from a perspective of someone who confuses a successful and operational theory, with fact: Theories are always ad hoc, always subject to revision, nevera final truth. In such a scenario Occam's Razor ceases to become what it is sometimes purported to be, an arbiter of truth quality, and becomes what I believe it was originally intended to be, a pragmatic tool for the philosopher and scientist, to maintain discipline and economy in theoritic formulation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.89.132.226 (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Below Paragraph is not referenced

Can someone provide a good reference with evidence of factualness for the below statement or i'd like to ask it to be removed.

"It is often statistically more likely that a patient has several common diseases, rather than having a single rarer disease which explains their myriad symptoms."121.216.104.133 (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Unhappy with statement about "simplest solution" in lead sentence

The very first sentence of the article presently reads, "Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor[1]), is the meta-theoretical principle that 'entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity' (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem) and the conclusion thereof, that the simplest solution is usually the correct one." I don't think that Occam's Razor says anything like, "the simplest solution is usually the correct one." That is just a popular misuse of the principle. A more correct statement is that, when presented with two competing theories supported by equal amounts of evidence, one may as well pick the simpler theory. In other words, there is no need to seek a very complicated explanation if there is no evidence for it, because a simpler explanation will do (at least, until more evidence becomes available). Therefore, I think that statement should be removed from the lead sentence of the article, or at least reworded to indicate that this is a popular interpretation of the Occam's Razor principle, which is not necessarily consistent with the original intent of the principle. See, for example, the discussion in the "Controversial aspects of the Razor" section of the article. Ketone16 (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Or, more concisely, "Don't make up theories for which there is no evidence." Ketone16 (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia criticizes article as containing too much jargon.

I think what Wikipedia is complaining about is what was heretofore called "knowledge". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.186.77 (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Anasakta Baba (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Rule of Thumb

Being Wikipedia I am sure you know full well that this connotation is derogatory to women who have been to college and taken a course in any history. Please take the "rule of thumb" out. Thanks. Try another way of explaining that doesn't involve this outdated and ridiculous phrase.

Beaten with a rod no wider than the width of a man's thumb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.17.232.20 (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Erm, no. See the WP article on Rule of thumb for references rebutting the etymology you cite, which is false and has been discredited. Jheald (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear God. The Rule of Thumb dates it's origins to ruling with...you guessed it...a THUMB. Measurements. Not your ridiculous, fictional view (which historical accuracy is also widely fictional) of how women should be treated. 124.169.254.196 (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane

ha ha, I had the derogatory origins of 'rule of thumb' argued to me several times in college, only to read just a few years ago how false it is (the spurious origins and the much older use of measurements). Good job jheald, keep the PC from getting ridiculous. --Paddling bear (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

WHAT? That is ridiculous. There is nothing derogatory about "rule of thumb"! I AM FEMALE. I would know if it were a derogatory term, or had any pejorative or misogynist connotation, as used in American or Canadian English, with certainty. I am less certain, but reasonably confident that it is a harmless term in British English as well. Repeat: Rule of thumb as metaphor for heuristic is acceptable, gender-neutral language! And yes, I "have been to college and taken a course in any history". Fear not. There are many other problems with this article, but it is female-friendly, have no concern about that ;o) --FeralOink (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Unusual words are not necessarily jargon

The article may have flaws (and the ncited direct quotes are unfortunate), but it does not have jargon. The word "entities", for example, is an English word that is not used by a single specialty (whgich is what I understand jargon to be).

I always understood the "razor" in Occam's RAzor was referring to sharply distinguising between two theories.

Wymberley (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a section for attempts to formalize the razor?

Seems like that be almost essential for the article but while there are plenty of stances on the razor, attempt to formalize it are given only a passing mention. 188.221.161.189 (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

In Literature and Writing?

Um, why is there a piece in their about Literature and Writing? Furthermore, what credibility does the website Hortorian.com have? Frankly, I do not see how a so called 'blog for young writers' could be credible.

93.107.200.242 (talk) 11:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The section on Religion,

I have an issue with this text

"Ockham himself was a theist. He considered some Christian sources to be valid sources of factual data, equal to both logic and sense perception. He wrote, "No plurality should be assumed unless it can be proved (a) by reason, or (b) by experience, or (c) by some infallible authority"; referring in the last clause "to the Bible, the Saints and certain pronouncements of the Church" (Hoffmann 1997).[citation needed] In Ockham's view, an explanation which does not harmonize with reason, experience or the aforementioned sources cannot be considered valid."

It seems like an appeal to authority, for example Occam was from the 14th century so of course he had no idea of evolution etc, he would have likely believed in god because that /was/ the most sensible theory of the time. Also the section lack proper citation.

If it is to remain then it should first have proper citation and secondly include the view that Occam was a product of his time.

Like this on the BBC website "What would William have said?

William of Occam would not have agreed; he was a Franciscan monk who never doubted the existence of God.

But in his century he wasn't breaking the rule named after him. 14th century science knew nothing about evolution or how the universe came into being. God was the only explanation available.

What William would think if he lived now is another matter..."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/beliefs/reasons_1.shtml#section_2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kungfukats2 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The article is simply stating the facts regarding Occam's stated opinion on the matter. I see no implication that his views were necessarily correct in this section. I don't think there's any need to insert speculation about what his beliefs might have been under different circumstances. Gukkor (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Empirical justification

I thought the treatment insufficient, but grant that my expanded explanation would benefit from constructive criticisms!-Tesseract2 (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Are there any citations for the first graf under "Empirical"? If it's an accepted school of thought, it should be referenced, yes? Lore Sjoberg (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hungry roommate

The fridge is hilarious.

It just needed to be said. Thmazing (talk) 05:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hilarious, yes. But I think it lacks a certain scholarly tone. I suggest that it be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.246.4 (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally I like it , and it's straight and to the point. The answer is of course that a group of Aliens did it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.214.23 (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Pictures like this are all over the article. I suppose that the woodcut of some piece of ancient folklore is appropriate, but it begs a more specific link to a pertinent article. Perhaps to the story of Persephone as an explanation for the changing seasons? The others, however, seem like lighthearted jokes and are not, in my opinion, appropriate in an address of key philosophical concepts. Replace the picture of the sun with one of William of Ockham, remove the baby and the tape measure (Seriously? "To Measure the razor's ability..."?) and maybe it'll look a little less like something from Uncyclopedia. IRSpeshul (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Variation

I think the text boxes for each variation makes the article too long. I'm not agaist listing them all if anyone thinks it's useful, but don't see why we need a text box. Perhaps the original could be a text box if it's needed. My issue is that the original is an obscure Latin phrase that no one uses, and over the many years, people have taken the concept and reworded it. Since there isn't a modern specifc quote, do we need each person's attempt? The term 'species' also has a zillion definitions, yet my dictionary picks one or two and leaves the rest.--Paddling bear (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. I agree 100% with Paddling Bear.75.21.149.52 (talk) 06:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Marcus Hutter's result: request for verification

I am not familiar with his field, but I am skeptical that Dr. Hutter (or anyone for that matter) has "proved mathematically that shorter computable theories have more weight when calculating the expected value . . ." Looking only at the abstract for the paper "Optimality of Universal Bayesian Sequence Prediction for General Loss and Alphabet" we find the quote:

"Furthermore, for various performance measures, we show Pareto-optimality of � and give an Occam’s razor argument that the choice w�~�2^K(\nu�) for the weights is optimal, where K(�\nu) is the length of the shortest program describing �\nu."

This quote suggests to me that Dr. Hutter is \emph{using} the razor and not proving it.

I request that someone with better knowledge of the field look in to this.

The paper I referenced can be found here: http://jmlr.csail.mit.edu/papers/volume4/hutter03a/hutter03a.pdf

74.74.227.116 (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. This article is specializing far too much. We need to branch out, creat new articles and if it does not meet that test then it ought to be omitted. That is assuming it isn't a subject that specifically invokes Occam.76.195.82.230 (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

There was no mistake in the sentence that you cite. It is the reference that you cite that is the wrong one. The actual reference is Marcus Hutter's book: "Universal artificial intelligence: Sequential decisions based on algorithmic probability" . According to Google Scholar this book has already been cited as a reference by 177 peer reviewed articles. You can read about it on Hutter's site: http://www.hutter1.net/ai/uaibook.htm

http://www.hutter1.net/ai/unipriors.htm Touisiau (talk)

Good news--this article has come closer to being simpler

Aside from my personal objection about the definition "the simpler it is the more probable its correctness", which is a gross misunderstanding of Occam, I have applied the razor to this article. You are lucky I left in the bare, relevant ramblings. This is not a plaything. This is one of the most offensively lengthy articles I have ever read. The images are stupid. Anyone coming in to revert, please post here about it or this will go to the admins.76.195.82.230 (talk) 05:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

This article will continue through its streamlining process, as stated by the above post. Discussion is clearly not something any editor wants here at the talk page, but I don't see why we have to start an edit war. This article is too long, confusing, specializing in ways it shouldn't and the stupid images do NOT HELP! Furthermore, though I will not remove it, I have major problems with the inclusion of Swinburne, one of the most idiotic philosphic writers, and also with the Probability section. That requires a probability-vis-a-vis-Occam's-razor page of its own.75.21.104.252 (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

If you guys have some more specific suggestions, maybe you could throw some tags up? Of course, there's always the risk that lazy editors will delete an imperfect segment rather than improve it...but I for one would welcome detailed critique of areas that need citations, need to be made more concise, belong in another article, etc.

As far as pictures go, I'll have to see better justification than just hating pictures before someone deletes almost all of the pictures in the article. Images are a powerful capability of Wikipedia, and used properly, they break up walls of text and provide decent summaries of sections. This is a big readability issue, and back's up all our amateur writings. All that having been said, I will again try to make images and captions interesting and relevant. -Tesseract2 (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems what has been said about the pictures is that you'd as soon have irrelevant and silly pictures just because you can. Did it ever occur to you whether or not you should have them? Do they add anything? Do they illustrate the Razor? How does a baby illsutrate it?75.21.104.252 (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

"the simplest explanation is more likely the correct one"

Is an incorrect summary of Occam's R. Can those IPs please STOP removing this as it misleads readers. Vexorg (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You should clarify what words exactly you are claiming to be "incorrect". I have tried to remove the summary of the simplest explanation, but editors here, having been schooled in that fallacy, keep putting it back. Rather it should say "The explanation with the least B.S. is probably the best one." THAT is what Ockham meant.75.21.104.252 (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The sentence is perfectly clear what is incorrect. Vexorg (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Religion, Philosophy, Statistics

I think a lot of this is quite relevant to Occam's razor and its use. Certainly relevant enough not to be mass deleted. Some of this stuff is for sure POV and uncited, and that should be deleted or minimized. A more careful combing through is in order - which I will try later or you can try.-Tesseract2 (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

razor not particular to atheism

An ip-editor removed the atheism template saying "anti-gods is merely one application" which OrangeMarlin reverted saying "atheism is not "anti-god"". While not agreeing with the "anti-god" bit, I do agree that the usage of razor in atheism is "merely one application". Having the atheism side-bar here gives "undue weight" to atheism. Accordingly, the atheism template should be removed. (and the link to Occam's razor should be removed as well.) Hpvpp (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll agree to that. Fleetham (talk) 14:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm in agreement, I just don't think anonymous editors should be removing content without explanation. Just a personal bias. And sorry, but atheism is NOT anti-god, especially since most atheists, like myself, know that god doesn't exist, so it's hard to be anti something that doesn't exist. It had nothing to do with my reverting the anonymous user, just a comment to his pejorative labeling of atheists as "anti-god." Occam's razor is a logical argument in discussions about the existence of god, but usually in the scientific sense. Like in creationism where the religious types bend and twist and turn to attempt to explain fossils, whereas simple evolution explains it quicker and easier. Occam's razor. But really, it's a philosophy of science issue rather than atheism. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

(i) Considering the responses here, I removed the template from the article and the article from the template.

(ii) Considering OrangeMarlin's comment about anonymous editors: I worry that this is one of the kinds of behavior that puts off new editors. See several discussions at Wikimedia. Hpvpp (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Too the poster of the thread; Please use proper grammar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.122.5 (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Empirical: Original research (and perhaps wrong too)?

The second paragraph under "empirical" seems to me to be original research:

In the history of explanations, this cannot be the case. Imagine the correct explanation of a phenomenon is found: that explanation was always competing with an infinite number of (relatively speaking) infinitely more complex alternatives. If this premise is granted, it amounts to a necessarily greater number of more complex, but incorrect theories for any given correct theory. This suggests an empirically justified bias towards simplicity in a theory.

Fortunately, someone added a "citation needed". Seems to me that this paragraph is

• unsupported
• difficult to understand
• wrong besides (but I'm not sure I understand it)

Dr Smith (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

After some editing, it is now more clearly a discussion of what ad-hoc hypothesizing has to do with the empirical use of Occam's Razor. Lemme know your thoughts.-Tesseract²(talk) 03:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll start with the first sentence of the new text.

Occam's razor has gained strong empirical support as far as helping to converge on correct theories (see "Applications" section below for some examples).

Scientific theories are not "correct" in any meaningful way; at best, a scientific theory is (a) falsifiable, and (b) not falsified yet.

Next sentence:

This does not, however, answer the question of why reality favours simpler explanations.[20]

I looked through the reference [20], but I could not find that it supports the sentence it is attached to. It's quite a long reference. It seems a pretty strong statement to say that reality favors simpler explanations. That's not what Occam's razor says. I doubt that any scientist would say that the tiny parcel of reality that he/she has devoted his/her life to studying is simple.

Next paragraph.

Even if Occam's razor is empirically justified (see "Applications" section below), so too is the need to use other "theory selecting" methods in Science. For instance, in order to have even justified Occam's razor, theoretically a scientist must first identify "the correct explanation" to gauge its complexity. Obviously this must be accomplished using other aspects of the Scientific method besides the razor itself (or else we would be making a circular argument to support the razor). Thus, to measure the razor's (or any method's) ability to select between theories, we must be sure to use a different, reliable "theory selecting" method for corroboration.

Science does not ever identify the correct explanation. Science is tentative. Always.

The comment about a circular argument seems condescending.

Next paragraph.

One should note the related concept of overfitting, where excessively complex models are affected by statistical noise, whereas simpler models may capture the underlying structure better and may thus have better predictive performance. It is, however, often difficult to deduce which part of the data is noise (cf. model selection, test set, minimum description length, Bayesian inference, etc.)

The "overfitting" stuff seems so loaded with weasel words that it is nearly devoid of meaning.

That's all for now.

I don't mean to be harsh; all the above is just my opinion. Of course.

Dr Smith (talk) 04:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate your input. I tried to make the quicker fixes first, as explained in the edit summary. That talk of over-fitting was not my doing. I do not understand it, and would not miss it.

Yes, we should discuss truth and science. That is, I am not the first to say that neither humans, nor their science, seem able to tell when they have formulated "correct" theories. Still, it does seem that this is quite different from claiming that neither could ever be "correct in any meaningful sense". For example, I would say that we may well be correct that the moon orbits the earth, even if we will never know if we are correct because of Hume's problem of induction.-Tesseract²(talk) 05:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, interesting stuff, isn't it.

You're right about my "correct in any meaningful way" bit. There are plenty of ways a scientific theory could be called "correct". For example, we could say a theory is correct if it is useful.

What I meant, though, is somewhat different than Hume's problem of induction, and perhaps somewhat similar to our inability to be able to tell when a theory is correct.

In the case of the moon orbiting the earth, yeah, I think we have that one covered. But what are the equations that describe the motion? This is where things get interesting. Newtonian mechanics works really really well, and augmented by Einstein, works fabulously well. Nonetheless, there may be room for even further adjustment. Consider the Pioneer anomaly and the flyby anomaly, for a couple of examples. Are either of these new physics? Maybe, maybe not. But my point is that science is open to the possibility that we are leaving something out. Maybe something huge.

So, is our current theory of gravity useful? Absolutely yes. Is it correct? Well, what do we mean by "correct"? Does the moon go around the earth? Yes; got that one covered. Will our understanding of the universe change in some deep and fundamental way that may tweak our current best guess at the equations of motion? Perhaps; science cannot rule it out.

Dr Smith (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, you are wary of my use of "correct", especially in a philosophical context. I get that. But I think we too often mistake the nature of the human condition (we are never certain) with the nature of the world as we actually believe it to be (things are true sometimes, theories are correct). We can only ever talk about what we are convinced is correct, and so we have: the earth and planets may well revolve around the sun. My point is that, the ever present shadow of skepticism not withstanding (e.g. wait, what IS skepticism really. For that matter, how sure can we be there is an earth? etc. etc.) I think there are clearly times that it is justifiable to speak with confidence that we have discovered a truth. For many other theories, mind you, like evolution.

Note too that I say Occam's "helps converge"; it is one tool of many that will help us reach the truth. Although, again, we will never be beyond capable of doubting that we have acquired truth- not even when we have it.-Tesseract²(talk) 02:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am more than wary of using the word "correct" to describe a scientific theory. A scientific theory can be

• accepted
• useful
• obvious
• widely regarded
• often cited
• etc.

But, by its nature, science is tentative and always willing to revise and rewrite, if other evidence presents.

Contrast with arithmetic, which is (provably) correct.

A scientific theory attempts to model part of the real world, and calling a scientific theory correct strikes me as dogmatic.

Since you mention evolution, yeah, it seems Darwin got the big picture right. But "survival of the fittest" (natural selection), seems an oversimplification. Consider The Selfish Gene for example. And, it seems like luck plays a huge role in the survival of species, and civilizations, and individuals. Sorry I don't have a reference for this, but, consider the Spanish Armada if you doubt the historical importance of luck. Dr Smith (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

IMO there is a conflation of "theories" and "explanations" which should be cleaned up first. -- Hpvpp (talk) 04:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That may be something we have to deal with next...

I am not sure we are understanding each other, partly because I feel like I agree with your points. "A scientific theory attempts to model part of the real world"; I agree, and if there is a real world, there is such thing as a "Correct" and "Incorrect" models. Or is that where you disagree? Perhaps you would say no model could be correct - not even heliocentrism, not even accidentally?

I also believe that there are degrees of certainty, ranging from a slight balance of probabilities (51%) to being beyond reasonable doubt (99%ish). Although, nothing is ever beyond a shadow of possible doubt (100% certainty). Perhaps you would say we should never use the word "correct", even to talk about things that are beyond reasonable doubt? I think that would be excessive skepticism - or at least failing to draw an important line during communication. I do not think science needs to get so tentative that we need to say "Well, we are convinced of the useful beliefs that the earth orbits the sun, that evolution is broadly correct, that we have lungs and hearts, etc... but we should not use the word "correct" to discuss such theories." To me, when something is beyond reasonable doubt, it is appropriate to begin using language of possible correctness.

I see another potential issue here. The sentence is changed if we say "Over the years, and after much new data, heliocentrism... has become the most accepted model" versus "heliocentrism... has emerged as the most likely model". In one case, we make no mention of the existence of truth, even in theory, and we speak only of agreement. In the second case, we are talking about the truth as much as we ever can. This is why I talk about some theories being "correct", rather than merely "popular". There is an important difference, and I do not think it dogmatic to make the distinction.

I believe that some models and explanations are correct sometimes. I believe that we can never know which ones are correct. Yet I also believe it is more than justifiable, even necessary, to use language like "correct" to discuss explanations that are extremely far from reasonable doubt.-Tesseract²(talk) 15:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

For the "... if there is a real world" bit, I'm content to completely ignore the brain-in-a-vat possibility as it is not particularly useful to this discussion.

I am also content to agree that it is correct that the earth goes around the sun instead of vice-versa.

Note there are several heliocentric models:

• Copernicus (same as ancient Greeks) - sun is center of the universe
• Kepler - sun is on one of the two foci of an ellipse, which is at the center of the universe
• modern - planets go around the sun in generally elliptical orbits; the sun's center is near the one of the foci of an ellipse, all the orbits wobble a bit due to cross-interactions of gravity, among other things; our sun is one of many stars, in one of many galaxies, nothing special about it (from the point of view of astronomy anyway).

Note also that as history marches on, this theory has gotten more and more complex. Even the meaning of the word has changed; I pretty sure you meant the modern view of heliocentric, not the original one.

Is heliocentrism correct? Yes, if all the word means is that the earth goes around the sun instead of vice-versa. However, when we consider the details, we have to bring in the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, dark matter, and probably even all of modern cosmology. I don't expect an expert in the field would be willing to tag this conglomeration as "correct" ... there are simply too many things we don't know.

Maybe our discussion boils down to whether "correct" is an absolute adjective or a comparative adjective.

I hear it both ways, but in my own use, it is an absolute adjective:

It is correct to say that 2 + 2 = 4. It is the same amout of correct to say 1 + 1 = 2.

If someone says

• 1 + 1 = 1.99, and/or
• 1 + 1 = 1.999

which is more correct? Neither, they are both wrong. I avoid saying "more correct"; I use "more nearly correct" instead.

You ask whether I would say that no model could be correct, not even heliocentrism, not even accidentally. In broad strokes, sure, models can be correct. But only if we don't look too closely. If we look closely (at heliocentrism, for example) we find that either

• the "broad strokes" version has been falsified (the center of the sun is not at the center of mass of our solar system), OR
• the fully detailed "standard model" is pushing the envelope of what we know.

I agree there are degrees of certainty, but this is not to say that I believe there are degrees of correctness. I believe there are things that are true beyond a shadow of a doubt; mathematics works in this realm, for example.

Dr Smith (talk) 03:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I have updated the writing in the Empirical section to try and honour your reservations. I agree that math and deduction can yield certain results. I also very much like your point about "being broadly correct", that was more where I was coming from - things get terribly unproductive when a person will not grant that the earth at least orbits the sun, in the plainest senses of the word. I just wanted to defend science's right to use words like "fact" at some broad, shallow, laymen, public level of discourse. That can actually be quite important.

Ultimately I agree that no model is likely to map to the universe well enough to be called fully correct on all details. You have at least convinced me there is no need to throw that word lightly around on the Razor's page.-Tesseract²(talk) 05:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The razor is not a theory and therefore cannot be falsified.

I have rewritten the first paragraph in terms of support and rejection of hypotheses. Also, I have deleted the last sentence (“Simply put, Occam's razor would be falsified if there was a positive correlation between (a) a theory's correctness and (b) the number of new assumptions it requires.”), because it misleadingly suggests that the distinction between truth and falsity is a matter of degree. -- Hpvpp (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I like it. That's a much better way of putting it.-Tesseract²(talk) 02:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Picture

It is coherent to add the involvement of Leprechauns to any explanation, but Occam's razor would prevent such additions, unless they were necessary.

Does anyone agree that this picture of a Gnome (It's currently on the page under Justifications/Testing the razor) is better than the earth/sun picture currently in the lead? Fleetham (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Without a doubt. It is a much stronger example of how useful the razor can be, since it gets tons of exercise when it comes to pseudoscience (whereas as more scientific theories normally end up competing more closely).

Unfortunately we get IPs deleting the image BECAUSE it's leprechauns. They assume it's some degree of not taking the subject matter seriously. That is why I moved the earth example back to the lead - to set the tone unambiguously.=Tesseract²(talk) 13:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Well maybe something that isn't leprechauns then? "It's coherent to involve some celebrity in every explanation..." maybe? Fleetham (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The razor does not help in any way of finding the model of the solar system, instead it comes from the observations taken from the orbit of Lo around Jupiter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.122.5 (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

movie the big bang 2011 movie

Is ab Occam's razor and Lex parsimonae etc and dialogue talks ab that a good deal (Antinio Banderas and Sam Elliott). q.v. etc big bang or big creep ? 69.121.221.97 (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC) and see also God Particle / Higgss Boson

Merger

It seems a merger may be in oder. Consider that...

• The "Parsimony" page is short except for...
• Discussion of its relation to science, where it is often used synonymously with the razor
• Even in the lead, Occam's Razor is said to be known also as the law (or principle) of parsimony

This seems to be one in the same practical bias tool. Depending on discussion, I am interested in redirecting that page here, and working the information into the appropriate sections.-Tesseract²(talk) 14:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be the other way around and the Parsimony page can then link to Occam's Razor and Morgan's Canon as alternative guises (as in Reber's 1985 The Penguin dictionary of psychology). -- Hpvpp (talk) 04:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

2 weeks and no objections! The Occam's Razor page was way bigger, so I merged Parsimony here. I was very careful, and I think I managed to port over every single link, fact, and logistical detail of the other page.-Tesseract²(talk) 04:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Uh, I objected. -- Hpvpp (talk) 06:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, sorry. After 2 weeks, one objection, and I think I had good reason not to let it delay my work. Your suggestion was basically to merge Occam's Razor into a page that was less than 1/5th the size (Parsimony) rather than bring those details over. If you really want to, it is not too late to begin discussing whether you should rename this page so that the content on this "Occam's Razor" could fly under the banner "Parsimony". Still, I do not think that is worth discussing (the Razor and Parsimony are basically synonymous in the literature, so the end result would be the same).-Tesseract²(talk) 13:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I think rather that the Principle of Parsimony is a higher order concept than either Occam's razor or Morgan's Canon. Specifically, I think that these two are but applications of the principle. Somebody will need to address that (sometime). -- Hpvpp (talk) 02:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the merge went the wrong way. Parsimony is an important concept outside the scientific field. There is, for example, the idea of artistic parsimony, where one doesn't include unnecessary distractions in a painting. Occam's razor is specifically for science and explaining phenomena, whereas parsimony is a broader concept. In the long run, I'd like to undo the merge. i kan reed (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

A couple complaints/concerns

1. Heliocentrism is a problematic example. Historically, it is well known that Copernicus's model was just as complex, originally, as was the model it was trying to displace. At a deeper level, heliocentrism is simpler only if you ignore various things that would have preoccupied people in the past. It is not clear to me that our current theories of planetary rotation, for example, are "simpler" than Ptolemy's. (General Relativity ain't exactly simple, except in the same way that you can reduce it to a conceptually simplistic "idea" if you want to be very incorrect about it, which you can also do with Ptolemy's approach, if you cared to.) The fact is, we have better reasons to believe in heliocentrism than Occam's razor alone. It's not a great example. The only reason Occam's razor works for heliocentrism is because we have amassed huge amounts of empirical evidence in favor of other theories. Not because they are "simpler." ("Simpler" is often in the eye of the beholder, in any case.)

2. The "empirical" section states with regards to testing of the razor that it has basically won out over time. It cites no evidence for this. It gives no impression as to what kinds of evidence it is considering and what kinds it is not. It strikes me (as in the example I give above) that determining whether the "simpler" answer won out is not always straightforward. Then moving on to supernatural leprechauns is, I think, a straw man argument. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Re 1. Actually the problem is worse: GR says that any frame of reference is valid. The question of which rotates around which becomes meaningless; all that happens is that you get simpler equations in some frames William M. Connolley (talk) 10:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Connolley - I am not clear about that last comment... so would you say GR (general relativity?) comes down on either side of the question "Does the earth orbit the sun or vice versa?"

1cont. Mr.98, you mention that "simpler" is in the eye of the beholder. That may be true if we use the term ambiguously, but there are ways to pin down what we mean by "simpler". Actually, I have yet to bring over, to the Wikipage, the relevant discussion from the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on "Simplicity". You are right to point out that these could become issues with the formulation of the Razor itself, and they would be relevant if anyone got around to it.

1cont. I also noticed that you say it is not clear to you that, today, current theories of planetary rotation are simpler than Ptolemy's. I think that is exactly the right question to ask, because the example on the page is discussing the modern justifiability of the preference for heliocentrism. It seems to me that, in some sense, we still only believe in it due to the Razor. That is, each of us is appealing to the simplest explanations when we believe that we are not deceived in thinking science has "amassed huge amounts of empirical evidence". Couldn't all our 'evidence' be somehow mistaken? Isn't it, today, partly through the use of Ockam's Razor that we believe heliocentrism despite that possibility? If not, perhaps we could discuss other examples, but I tend to think it's good enough.

2. Issues with the formulation of the Razor and "simplicity" in general notwithstanding, I am not sure what evidence you mean the "Empirical" section is not providing. The point is that ad-hoc explanations can save any theory, meaning the Razor (or some appeal to simplicity) is needed to ultimately reject them. Leprechauns are not a straw man here, they are the most dramatic example of this: a coherent and possible explanation that is ultimately unhelpfully complex.-Tesseract²(talk) 15:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

1: no, I'd say what I said: The question of which rotates around which becomes meaningless and then, I suppose, amplify that with "unless you specify which frame of reference you are using" William M. Connolley (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Move paragraph from Overview into History, please?

The paragraph in "Overview" that begins with the sentence: "Occam's razor is attributed to the 14th-century English logician, theologian and Franciscan friar Father William of Ockham (d'Okham)..." bogs down that section. It would, however, be a great start to the "History" section. (The History section currently starts awkwardly with a lengthy quote, which at first glance looks not like a quote but like accidentally indented text.)

Shall we move the paragraph into History? Reverence Still (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Image and description inappropriate

Everything revolves around everything else. That's the simplest, most Occam's Razor friendly explanation. Because all motion is relative, the Earth can be considered motionless with all the heavenly bodies revolving around it. The explanation for the sun revolving around the earth is no more complex than its opposite. Please, don't anyone knee-jerk reverse this edit until you have thought about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SemblaceII (talk • contribs) 20:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This image was added in October 2010 by Tesseract2 (talk · contribs). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I first added the picture. And I maintain that there should be SOME illustrative image - even if we do not agree on this one.

As for this particular image: I have brought back the picture. I think that was appropriate because I believe I made the caption more explicit about the point you make. I do not, however, see how the geocentric model (see side) could be considered nearly as parsimonious as the models accepted by modern science. That is, I have been more clear about what science does believe. Let me know what you think.-Tesseract²(talk) 02:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there should be some illustrative image. I'm not inclined to come on too strongly behind what I might try to contribute here. In this case just content that it resulted in a clarification. Too pretty a picture, anyway, to discard. SemblaceII (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistent citations

Article begins by using footnote citations, then for a section near the end switches to APA citation, then switches back to the original citation style. Citation style should be uniform throughout the entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.142.66 (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Do you know which section that was where the switch occurred? Rodaen (talk) 06:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

reference tag format

I reformatted the references so that they're the same throughout the article, not sure which version was preferable (in one line, or separated by one line per field), so I chose the one that more closely resembles the style in WP:citing sources, i.e. one line. I hope this is acceptable Rodaen (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Efficiency and entropy?

Perhaps Occam's razor can be viewed as maximizing the efficiency (via entropy) involving explanatory power, data, and probability. Something like: simplicity * known_data * prob_unknown_data

So Occam would say to prefer the explanation that is most efficient.

Just a thought I had while reading the main page - I do not have any data or proofs to back it up. Interested in folks' thoughts, clarifications.

--4johnny (talk) 02:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

What's the opposite?

While "anti-razors" are described, it is unclear if they are the opposite: —the tendency to choose a cluttered or complex explanation. One example are conspiracy theorists, particularly those of a superstitious nature (clustered mental combinations with that nature seem to be common). Are these "anti-razors?" As; "His default position was usually to apply (say;) "anti-Occam." to any question. Or is there no such term for that concept? Thanks!
--68.127.90.0 (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Religion. Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Doug (and appreciate Malleus' reply). While Chatton's statement may well be referred to as an 'anti-razor,' it is hardly the opposite, at least as written here. "IF three things are not enough..." is a weak statement, and does not conflict with Occam. In fact, as a casual reader, it seems to imply that a fourth item should be added if (and only if) three things are not enough. I have no suggestions for particular improvement; I only suggest food for thought. Andykass (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

On "Testing the Razor"

There is a section, "Testing the Razor", which states that Occam's Razor is empirically testable.

The test: Look at the track record of theories, and see which ones needed to be complicated in order to succeed. If most theories need to be corrected with complications, then the Razor is empirically falsified / infirmed.

But this section is wrong. The preceding test would make sense if Occam's Razor stated that the world was likely to be simple in general. Then, the more complex we discovered the world to be, the worse for the principle. But in fact, the principle states that the world is probably as simple as possible given a set of evidence, where the evidence can set a baseline of complexity as high as you like.

There are other problems too. Suppose that Occam's Razor corresponds to a certain probability distribution over hypotheses of varying complexity. If that probability distribution has a wide spread, then it is easy for the simplest hypothesis in a set to be both (a) by far the most likely relatively speaking, and (b) very unlikely in absolute terms. Depending on how previous theories are corrected & complicated, complicating old theories could actually confirm the Razor. It's all a matter of the proposed distribution and the test specified.

In the literature, some philosophers of science are working on justifications for simplicity principles like Occam's Razor. It is not a consensus in that literature that the Razor is empirically testable. Nor is it agreed that, if it were testable, the track record of science tells against it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.151.130.135 (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Request to remove reference to Hitchens

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

Hitchens does not define what constitutes evidence. The fans of this second grade writer are poisoning philosophy pages. Wikipedia certainly doesn't need pseudo-intellectuals adding nothing new to the knowledge bank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.130.103 (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Nor does it need opinion in lieu of facts and sources. Ninahexan (talk) 05:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Assumptions

Some fun quotes from me:

"There is only one assumption that one can justify making- assuming that all of your assumptions are incorrect."

"Assuming that all of your assumptions are incorrect- is in fact, the only correct assumption one can possibly make." 173.30.88.155 (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Occam's razor doesn't exist

because we can hardly ever decide what's the simplest or economical explanation, and anyhow the truth usually turns out to have complications. Maybe Occam's pruning shears exist, removing the most contrived theories.198.189.194.129 (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Occam's razor article." -- Top of page Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • "Simplest hypothesis is that Occam's razor doesn't exist." It is reasonable to speculate that some philosophers have taken a rhetorically humorous approach to the subject. I suggest we be aware of this possibility.99.53.178.211 (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thought provoking ideas about God and Occam's razor

I've got to say, this is a pretty good article. I have some thought provoking ideas that may be helpful for this topic someday.

Occam's razor favors the theory that requires the fewest number of assumptions, right?

I read a quote in this article about applying Occam's razor to God. So which is it?
"if the concept of a God does not help to explain the universe better, then the idea is that atheism should be preferred"
"if the concept of atheism does not help to explain the universe better, then the idea is that theism should be preferred"

Number of assumptions:
- You can assume that God exists
- You can assume that God does not exist
Both require the same number of assumptions

I know you can try to say that to posit God is to assume the existence of an element where to not posit God does not assume the existence of that element and therefore does not have that as an assumption. So to not consider God is to have 1 fewer assumptions. The problem with that reasoning is that the presence or absence of God is actually binary question. The "yes" answer and the "no" answer are equal in terms of their assumptive power for that question. Either some form of God is responsible for something unexplainable, or some form of God isn't responsible for something unexplainable. Philosophically speaking, it is an assumption either way and they are equal.

There are certain peculiar things that science has not been able to explain. To think that science may one day be able to explain those things is an assumption. Let me write that again for emphasis. To think that science may one day be able to explain those things is an assumption. On the other hand, of course, to think that God may be the explanation is also an assumption (as is commonly pointed out). So again, they're equal in terms of number of assumptions when it comes to explaining the unknown. Now then, if divine revelation does happen to be a part of the human experience (as William of Ockham believed), why not think of it as a sixth sense and consider the possibility that you simply haven't recognized your sixth sense yet? (While others may have.) That way, divine revelation could be nudged a little closer to the realm of what could be thought of as scientific. Granted, more people would have to start experiencing it for it to become accepted, but that's a social issue. Philosophically speaking, why not?

DavidPesta (talk) 11:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

No, this is a long, rambling article with an unholy number of Wikilinks, references and sections. Please, DavidPesta, don't indulge in rhetoric or invite discussion about the existence of G_d and Occam's Razor and psychic sixth senses here, in the talk page of Wikipedia. It is not the place. There's some WP policy or other about it too. (Better to spend your time cleaning up the references, for example. Just a suggestion.) --FeralOink (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

This isn't how it works, because you're not considering what the term "God" actually represents. It's like this:

Either:

A) The observable natural world exists, or

B) The observable natural world exists, and so does an entity which cannot be observed in a testable way, with powers that cannot be measured, which acts according to unknown (and, most religions posit, unknowable) rules, mechanisms and agendas.

The Razor selects the theory which contains the least number of additional terms, not the one that can be stated in the most simplistic way. Each item of God's description (invisible, omnipotent, unknowable) is an additional untestable term; the fact all these terms are ascribed as the properties of a single creature is not relevant.

To put it another way, would you regard "your television is powered by electricity" as being just as simple an explanation as "your television draws power from the mains and is powered by invisible alien beings from Pluto using a beam that supplies it with a form of energy that cannot be measured and works in a way not explained by the known properties of the television's circuitry?" Herr Gruber (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Spelling?

I might have missed this in the article, but why would something named after "Ockham" be spelled "Occam"? --Dweller (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Probably due to the evolution of language - simplification of spelling is a fairly common occurrence. IIRC the spelling of names was not standardized either at the time, and "Occam" is one of the variants according to the William of Ockham article. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. If you have a source for that, it'd be a worthwhile addition to the article! --Dweller (talk) 09:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Is the 'Razor' about simplicity or the number of assumed entities?

Gentlemen,

there is this issue: in the folklore of English-speaking countries the 'razor' seems to be about simplicity of explanations (simpler--better, more involved--worse, caeteris paribus). In the Continental folklore, by contrast, it is about the number of assumed entities. This is also suggested by the mediaeval or supposedly mediaeval Latin formulations: entia non sunt multiplicanda..., pluralitas non est ponenda ... and the like.

Please observe that the two 'razors' are not by any means equivalent. Explanations (proofs, considerations) employing less entities are usually more complex than those less entity-wise parsimonious. As has been known at least since Russell and Whitehead, all mathematics can be built on the assumption that there exists just one entity, namely, the empty set. (Plus the operation of forming a set of no matter what.) But school-books for first graders with maths employing just that entity would run into hundreds if not thousands of pages.

The Continental-Latin 'razor' fits better its name: it's a razor with which to cut away unnecessary entities (but there is not an intuitive image of making anything simpler with a razor---save, perhaps, your life after you've employed a razor to get rid of a rival/creditor/boss...)

Any statements? 131.220.251.159 (talk)Wojciech Żełaniec —Preceding undated comment added 12:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

good one99.53.178.211 (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Complexity may be understood as the number of elements and their interactions.

Constancy of scientific law

Contrary to what the article states, "constancy of the laws of nature" is not an axiom of the scientific method, but a verifiable, falsifiable theory. Through observations of distant (and thus far in the past) quasars, fossile studies of climate, cosmological constraints on the early universe, and other studies of the physics of the past, we can observe that the basic physical constants have not changed. For example, this reference uses white dwarfs to constrain the change in the Gravitational constant and this reference uses atomic clocks to constrain changes in the fine structure constant. The constancy of these "constants" is actively tested, and theories in which, e.g., the speed of light changes in time are occasionally proposed

References

So I have pulled that section of the article. David s graff (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

You are drawing a conclusion from the primary literature that itself is not directly contained in the literature. This is the violation of Wikipedia editorial policy known as WP:synthesis. As far as I can tell, the section that was removed had adequate support in the underlying references without needing to draw conclusions not explicitly put forward in the source that was cited. If there is explicit disagreement in the published literature, then you are welcome to cite those sources that themselves draw the conclusion that the constancy of the laws of nature is a verifiable, falsifiable theory. However, drawing the broad and very general conclusion that the "constancy of natural law is a verifiable, falsifiable theory" from a limited number of specialized test cases violates wp:synthesis. If your preferred viewpoint can be substantiated more directly with reliable sources, then both viewpoints should probably be represented to maintain a neutral point of view.Support.and.Defend (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed?

There is a part of the article that says "This maxim seems to represent the general tendency of Occam's philosophy, but it has not been found in any of his writings.[citation needed]" In my opinion this is ridiculous. Why should he have to cite that something has NOT been found? If he did, in fact, say such a thing that anyone can come through and correct that part by adding the exact phrase he used as well as a link to it. In my opinion, this [citation needed] should be removed.190.102.142.82 (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand the nature of Wikipedia. The claim reads as if a user has read through all of Occam's writings and come up with this statement. That is original research, which, as you'll see if you click the link, is not permitted on Wikipedia for good reasons. The tag should not be removed unless and until someone finds the claim in a reliable secondary source. --Dweller (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

parsimony

Great - I requested parsimony and was redirected here. This article uses the term parsimony without ever defining it. Definitions should preceed any use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.184.76 (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

controversial aspects

The heading for the controversial parts of occam's razor should be changed to defense against controversy to better reflect the content of the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.182.3.201 (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The section doesn't appear to be about controversy one way or another. Other suggestions for a title change? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Testing the razor

The last sentence of the para in the article seems to be unnecessarily complicated, and perhaps confusing: "This endless supply of elaborate competing explanations, called saving hypotheses, cannot be ruled out—but by using Occam's Razor." Are there any objections to it being changed to: "This endless supply of elaborate competing explanations, called saving hypotheses, can be ruled out by using Occam's Razor."? - Oniscoid 06:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oniscoid (talk • contribs)

Suggestion to change descriptive image

The image of earth doesn't add much to the definition of Occams razor. If we are going to use the geocentric vs heliocentric models as examples, a better illustration would be to compare the relatively simple orbits of planets around the sun (ovals) to the complex flower like shape of the orbits go planets that go around earth in a geocentric model, something like this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.218.175.195 (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

popular culture section

this was deleted before.[1] Would be great to reintroduce it back into the article in some form:

• Galileo Galilei lampooned the misuse of Occam's Razor in his Dialogue. The principle is represented in the dialogue by Simplicio. The telling point that Galileo presented ironically was that if you really wanted to start from a small number of entities, you could always consider the letters of the alphabet as the fundamental entities, since you could certainly construct the whole of human knowledge out of them (a view that Abraham Abulafia presented much more expansively).
• In dialogue between the characters portrayed by Jodie Foster and Matthew McConaughey in the 1997 movie Contact based on the novel by Carl Sagan, Foster's character mentioned the razor, saying, "it's a basic scientific principle. And it says, all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the right one."
• In the video game The Simpsons Road Rage, one of Professor Frink's exclamations is, "Great Ockham's Razor!"
• In the Simpsons episode "Grampa vs. Sexual Inadequacy", Lisa tries to use the logic of Occam's Razor to invalidate her peers' conspiracy theories.
• Episode 3, Season 1 of the Fox medical drama House is entitled "Occam's Razor".
• The rock bands 30 Seconds to Mars, Spiral Architect, Adam Again and The Mint Chicks have used "Occam's Razor" as a song name.
• The song Burning Beard by the rock band Clutch includes the lines: "Okkam’s (sic) razor makes the cutting clean/Shaven like a banker, lilac vegetal".
• The song "Load Me Up" by the Matthew Good Band contains the lyric "...Murphy's fighting Ockham, you're in the stands" in reference to both Murphy's Law and Occam's Razor.
• Part I of Richard Russo's novel Straight Man is entitled "Occam's Razor".
• In the Neal Asher novel The Line of Polity, a large Polity dreadnought is named "Occam's Razor". Presumably, the Polity felt that extreme force was often the simplest solution.
• Ockhams Razor is mentioned in the television series The Shield by detective Holland "Dutch" Wagenbach in Season 6 Episode 2.
• Occam's Razor is also mentioned in the novel ''Conspiracies'' by F. Paul Wilson.
• Occam's Razor is mentioned several times in the Ender's Game Series

Wholesomegood (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Removed frivolous words

Removed frivolous words in bold:

Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in problem-solving devised by William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347). It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

May22freed (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Occam v. Ockham

Shouldn't the article use "Ockham" as the first spelling (with "Occum" in parentheses) since Ockham was the spelling of his origin (or is Occham an alternate spelling for the place too)? I counted the use, and although Ockham is used ~40 times and "Occum" is used over 60, I think we should still go with the place's true spelling. At the least the article should pick one. It's minor, but seems logical. --Paddling bear (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The title of the article is Occam's razor. Article titles are typically, though not always, the first spelling used in an article, yet your recent changes do not list the title spelling at all (incidentally the spelling I am most familiar with, though perhaps it is not the optimal choice). It would be preferable to list Occam, if not as the main spelling, then as a spelling variant. Also, there are now three other spellings of Occam's razor in the lead section (Ockam's razor, Occham's razor, and Ockham's Razor) , none of which match the article title spelling, and one of which is not listed as a spelling variant in the lead sentence. Consistency of usage and identification of all spellings used seems preferable here, and I request you incorporate changes to that effect, and possibly an article retitle with redirect, if the new spelling is to remain. -- Michael Devore (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The simplest and correct way to address this is to leave the heading as-is; "OCCAM" is the common usage. As long as the original "OCKHAM" is mentioned, this spelling need not be used again. My inclination is to vary the spelling between Ockham when talking of the man and Occam when talking of the "razor"--but that is only my personal whim.75.21.149.52 (talk) 06:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this may be the simplest and correct way, but currently the spelling is used randomly in the article. An explanation as to the spelling should appear at the top, and then the spelling should be maintained consistently to the common usage throughout the article. I'll make this change if nobody objects here. --Lenehey (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Ockham is the correct spelling. Also many of the reference titles are not spelled occam at all, for example http://sober.philosophy.wisc.edu/selected-papers "Let's Razor Ockham's Razor." by Sober, is not spelled Occam? So why reference an article by the incorrect name?

Pretty much every other notable source has the titles reversed. Examples

• http://www.iep.utm.edu/ockham/
• http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ockham/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.255.202.104 (talk) 06:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

A controversial title change is a radical thing to do for a new editor. You need a consensus first, so let's discuss this. Have you searched for previous discussions about this? I haven't noticed any, but if there are any, please point them out.

WP:COMMONNAME would certainly apply here. Do a Google search. A great difference decides it:

• "Occam's razor" - 590,000 results
• "Ockham's razor" - 251,000 results

That's a pretty clear result determining the primary title here. Other than that, we use all reliable sources, regardless of spelling. There is no need for consistency of spelling within the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

"Infinite" was an incorrect choice

The last sentence of the intro is:

"For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there is always an infinite number of possible and more complex alternatives, because one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypothesis to prevent them from being falsified; therefore, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable.[1][10][11]"

I have changed the words “there is always an infinite number…” to “there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number….” Although in ordinary prose the word infinite is often used metaphorically as a synonym for “extremely large,” this is probably an unwise thing to do in a scientific article. Assuming, therefore, that the word is being used scientifically, rather than metaphorically, it is an incorrect choice. Nothing in the real universe is infinite, not the number of particles nor even all possible permutations of the number of particles (although the latter is too large a number for us to give even an approximate value for, much less comprehend). --Wikifan2744 (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)