If this were a government site, this item would be instantly deleted for use of the word equal. Maybe my whole column. Maybe my whole life on line. Maybe my social security checks. You get the idea.
While at MIT, I didn’t recognize the origin of the frequently used phrase “All things being equal, which, of course they never are.”
“All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one.”
–William of Occam
Comments
Ox cams Razor l, IMHO, is the grossest manifestation granted credence in science today. It is not supported by evidence and is destructive to the scientific enterprise. The simplest explanations of important phenomena such as climate change or civilization collapse require the complex of many variables to account for. Accham’s Raizor merely inclines us to the easy problem and condemns us to incompetence off mastery for the complex.
For the most part I agree. The intent of this item was not to applaud Occam, merely to note the origin of a phrase that I often heard a half century ago. If anything, the phrase “if all things were equal which they never are,“ tends to indicate the bogus nature of the razor.
Maybe it would help if you got the quote right: The Razor states, "Entities should not be multiplied beyond their necessity." In more common language, it means that if there are two or more theories to explain something, the simpler theory is preferable. In the context of explaining problems, it means that the simplest explanation for why a problem exists is usually the correct one. For example, "Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by stupidity." Stupidity is a simpler explanation than Malice, that is, Stupidity has fewer elements than Malice (such as the absence of motivation). As applied to solving problems, read the words! They tell you that a solution should not contain elements "BEYOND THEIR NECESSITY." It does not teach that "simplistic is best"; it teaches that "needlessly complex is bad."
IMHO, this is simply begging the question. What might one propose as a yardstick for needlessness? What does “beyond their necessity” even mean? This position reminds me of winemakers who, kowtowing to the non-interventionist crazies in the Natural Wine movement, report “I do only the minimum.” Of course they do – unneeded intervention costs money. This claim doesn’t distinguish them from anyone else. It’s a distinction without a difference.
You're seriously not able to understand the concept of "necessity"? Something is "necessary" to an explanation when, if you don't have it, you do not have a complete explanation. "Beyond necessity" means something that can be removed from an explanation without rendering it incomplete or outright wrong. I don't know much about winemaking, but I do know that it is an ACTIVITY, not an EXPLANATORY THEORY. So analogies to winemaking for applications of Occam's Razor are irrelevant and ridiculous.