SoylentNews

Eratosthenes [soylentnews.org] writes:

Scientists really barely understand logic, as has been proven many times over. But now, to ask this? Here it is, at Salon.com [salon.com], a good a source as any.

William of Ockham is the medieval philosopher who gave us what is perhaps the world's only metaphysical knife. Raised by Franciscan friars and educated at Oxford in the late 13th century, he focused his energies on what can only be described as esoterica, topics spanning theology and politics. In service of this occupation, he clashed with Pope John XXII and was excommunicated by the Catholic Church.

Ockham's exploration of the philosophical concept of nominalism and his preference for parsimony in logical arguments gave rise to the concept of Ockham's Razor (sometimes spelled "Occam"). Stated plainly, the Razor asserts that if two models equally explain a scenario, the simpler of the two is more likely.

A bit unfair, to a philosopher of the period. But even today, Ockham's razor is often taken to only say "do not posit entities unnecessarily", but the older interpretation, "the simpler explanation is more likely to be the correct one", still holds. Or not, they say? Is the Razor still sharp?

The Value of the Razor

  In his book "The Demon-Haunted World," the late Carl Sagan introduces a thought experiment of a dragon in his garage. When Sagan convinces someone to come look at the dragon, the visitor opens the garage door and finds nothing there. Sagan then counters that "she's an invisible dragon," and, naturally, cannot be seen.

Damn, I knew it would come down to "Sagan's Dragon". But better than Russell's Teapot, or Maxwell's Daemon.

Nicks in the blade

Ironically the preservation of Ockham's Razor over the centuries may be due to its own internal simplicity. Simply by uttering the phrase "Ockham's Razor," it is possible to challenge everything from an interpretation of a new physics experiment, to the explanation of a social movement, to a possible account for a crime scene. The Razor has broad utility in pushing back against explanations that appear to be overly complicated or continue to amend their original thesis by layering secondary and contingent explanations in response to new challenges.

Yet in science, the Razor is just one concept that researchers might use in considering a theory. How predictive is the theory? Is it falsifiable? How well does it align with other explanations that we believe are correct? How internally consistent is it? These and many more questions all are part of the discourse of science. Ockham's Razor in and of itself is not the sole criterion for finding the truth — and applying the Razor outside of the narrow realm of statistical model selection is not so simple.

For scientists that would equate the Razor with beauty and elegance, this only sparks the question of who gets to define beauty? Past scientific revolutions have a habit of diminishing the centrality of humans; the heavens do not revolve around us, we were not created separate from the rest of nature, our minds are not perfectly rational in their function. Believing that the universe must accord with our own sense of the beautiful seems another case of hubris and unwarranted human exceptionalism.

Of course, on the other hand, anything that stops us from our tendency to spin tall tales or concoct conspiracy theories is welcome, in my opinion.

Though Okham's Razor may not be well suited to all types of knowledge, at the boundaries of scientific knowledge it offers a rubric to test hypotheses. The Razor continues to demonstrate utility to whittle down chaff at the margins. It would be convenient if the Razor alone was sufficient to settle all scientific debate. But the world, it turns out, is not so parsimonious.

So let me get this straight: the world may be such, that the simplest of our explanations of it do not correspond to reality? But William of Ockham never said they had to. Just a good place to start? He was not only excommunicated, you know. After seeking the protection of German Princes, William of Ockham died of the Black Death. Simplest explanation? Wear your mask! It is only absolutists like Sherlock Holmes (who did not die of the Black Death), who said things like, "once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the answer." If only we could narrow it down to a single explanation; or at least a few of which one was clearly the simpler. Logic for scientists. Not simple at all.

Original Submission