Occam didn't say to never add complications. Or that the simpler idea is always better or correct. He said not to add unnecessary complications, and that you should go with the simpler idea if and only if all other methods of distinguishing between the two ideas fail. In other words, it's only for choosing between theories or hypotheses that explain the evidence equally well. Simpler theories that do not explain the evidence equally well are discounted. When the evidence is not equal, there is no Razor; you just go with the explanation that explains the facts better. Occam was only talking about plan B: what to do when you can't do what you'd prefer to do, which is a decision based on evidence.
Another key point about Occam’s Razor is it’s disposable; even in a case in which you were using it before, you throw it away when new evidence comes along which is better explained by one idea than the other. (Even if you then still end up favoring the same conclusion as before, it's not for the same reason.)Like we discussed last week, “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate”, was not a new idea even in William of Ockham’s 14th century England. The idea of being forced to choose the simpler (I’m using this term lightly) of a set of theories dated back into 4th century Greece. (“The more perfect a nature is, the fewer means it requires for its operation "- Aristotle) It’s a concept that is true to our human nature. We keep things simple as far Homo sapiens go. For example, we design computers with the human brain in mind. Instead of coming up with something completely new we stick to what we know.
So how do we apply Occam’s disposable razor to our stressful lives? Just like shaving, we can only do so where it is appropriate and needed. If there is more supporting evidence to one side of an issue then we should start to lean toward. The difficulty is interrupting the evidence; we will touch on that in a later post when we pull out Newton’s Flaming Laser Sword.
Continental drift offers an interesting example of a theory that was utterly rejected by Occam’s razor (and scientists) only to be vindicated years later. It was recognized centuries ago by mariners and mapmakers that South America and Africa had complementary coastlines. Their respective west and east coasts seemed like they once fit together like a huge jigsaw puzzle. Other more tantalizing geological and fossil evidence also suggested that continents moved like flotsam over the surface of the earth. Meteorologist Alfred Wegener codified this thinking in his 1915 book On the Origin of Continents and Oceans. He proposed that all continents were, in the distant past, merged into one mega-continent he called Pangaea (Greek for “all the land”). The theory that landmasses migrated over the earth was, however, almost unanimously derided by American scientists. The geological and fossil evidence was also perceived to be not compelling since they could be explained equally well by other theories. The primary downfall of Wegener’s theory, however, was his assumption of the existence of the gargantuan forces required to move continents. His attempts to account for this were unpersuasive to the scientific community and even to Wegener himself. One example invoked gravity as the force responsible for continental drift. Physicists ridiculed this possibility by showing mathematically that gravitational forces were far too feeble to power such continental wanderings. Many years passed until a plausible mechanism was proposed, this time by Scottish geologist Arthur Holmes. He theorized that earth’s crust was composed of a mosaic of rigid and fractured plates. In addition, he claimed that convection currents in the earth’s mantle, powered by radioactive decay, moved these plates in different directions about the surface of the earth. These and other propositions eventually evolved into Holmes’ paradigm-shattering theory called plate tectonics, which now underpins our modern understanding of geology and the evolution of the earth itself. Full acceptance still took many years but when the evidence for plate tectonics became incontrovertible, continental drift finally had a plausible mechanism for its assumption that delayed acceptance for decades.
Another issue that Occam’s razor is often applied to is the existence (or non-existence) of a Divine Being. As Jodi Foster’s character stated in the 1997 Warner Bros. film Contact “…what's more likely? That an all-powerful, mysterious God created the Universe, and decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or, that He simply doesn't exist at all, and that we created Him, so that we wouldn't have to feel so small and alone?” This idea is used by atheists to give weight to the idea of the non-existence of a god. For example, atheists often apply Occam's razor in arguing against the existence of God on the grounds that God is an unnecessary hypothesis. We should be able to explain everything without assuming the extra metaphysical baggage of a Divine Being. On the other side of the debate, some “creationists” have argued that Occam's razor can be used to support creationism over evolution. After all, having God create everything is much simpler than evolution, which is a very complex mechanism. William of Occam himself used the principle to argue against Christian Platonism. Christian Platonism was a theory during the middle ages which believed that God modeled the creation of the world after the Platonic Forms in his mind. Thus the creatures of the world were degraded imitations of these perfect forms. Occam argued that these were excess assumptions. He then used this argument to paint of picture of creation in which God did whatever-the-hell he wanted to. This was a bit disturbing to Christian theologians, because this completely free creation meant that God could've made hating him pious and evil deeds virtuous. These present-day battles could be considered manifestations of the battles between scholastic and scientific thought:
In religion, the word is a given. The stories, explanations, concepts and formulations provided by the Holy Scripture are unquestionable: we can annotate them and interpret them, but to consider whether they could be replaced with different, more accurate words, immediately takes us out of the realm of (the Christian) religion.
In science, on the other hand, the word is just a working tool. Darwin makes an honest attempt to explain how evolution works based on what he observed, but his words may be replaced with better explanations, should they come along, since what really matters is not the words, but the actual world and how it works.
This explains why the creationism debate is so thoroughly unproductive; the collision is not about matters of fact or explanations of facts, it is a collision between the scholastic and scientific intellectual attitudes. From a scholastic viewpoint, Occam's razor, or for instance, the notion of a scientific theory held in science, is utterly nonsensical. God-given concepts on the other hand - starting with God - are seemingly impossible to understand from a scientist's point of view. On the other hand, scientific evidence can be used to back of claims by creationists. So far the creationist’s have been able to come up with just as much scientific, repeatable evidence for their claims of an intelligent designer (if not more) than the evolutionists have for their ideas concerning the progression of man-kind.
Who or what made us is a stressful concept because it concerns everything we are and who we are supposed or should be. Using Occam’s razor we can shave a few sides off of each side but the debate remains. Using the razor for things like the geo-centric theory, plate tectonics and deciding on the best way to take out the trash can take us through difficult territory. Keeping things simple and not coming up with complicated explanations for things when a simpler answer is available is a good place to start in de-stressing your life.
Well, that’s another graveyard shift post. Hope it all makes sense, I’ll re-read it tomorrow when I get some sleep. I did include some inconsistencies in there on purpose, let’s see if you can use Occam’s handy razor to cut through my complicated blog.
