Talk:Occam's razor/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

"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)

Too complicated?

Here you go. Yes I'm being serious. Cheers, --217.81.145.171 (talk) 05:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Occam's razor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110429150237/http://www.columbialawreview.org/pdf/Tonry-Web.pdf to http://www.columbialawreview.org/pdf/Tonry-Web.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20030212134637/http://www.rii.ricoh.com:80/~stork/OccamWorkshop.html to http://rii.ricoh.com/~stork/OccamWorkshop.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead seems too detailed

I stumbled across this article from a link in this story about a baseball player and his son. Anyway, after reading through the lead, it seems to contain quite a lot of detail and more information than is need in my opinion. Per MOS:LEAD, the lead should simply summarize what comes later in the article, providing a general overview but leaving detailed discussion to rest of the article. The second and third paragraphs of the lead discuss Alan Baker and ideas, but neither Baker nor his concepts are not covered later in the article. I think such information might be fine for later on and summarized in the lead if needed as is done for Solomonoff, but it seems out of place and a bit WP:UNDUE when it's only included in the lead. This kind of detail does not, in general, seem appropriate for the lead. Maybe the bulk of paragraphs two and three should be added to "Other philosophers" in a subsection titled "Alan Baker" and then briefly mentioned in the lead if necessary, but I am interested in hearing what others think about this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Time to archive

I think it might be time again to archive some of the posts on this talk page. It looks like the last time it was done was in January 2010 by Athaenara. It might also be a good idea to set up automatic archiving, so that it's done on a more regular basis. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I've transferred the older material. Anybody who wants to is welcome to set up automated archiving, but I'm not sure this page gets enough activity to require it. Looie496 (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Occam's razor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111215051421/http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Sober-The-Principle-of-Parsimony.pdf to http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Sober-The-Principle-of-Parsimony.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061108113237/http://philosophy.wisc.edu/sober/TILBURG.pdf to http://philosophy.wisc.edu/sober/TILBURG.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic chat (WP:NOTAFORUM)

Extended content

Too many philosophers There is too much made of philosophy here, counting angels on the head of a pin, and people making too much of a simple thing. Friars are the pragmatic bunch. Sometimes people saying the simplest solution is usually correct can be made recursively or self referentially. This is the case with Occam's Razor. The simplest meaning is usually the correct one. All you bozos making a mountain out of a molehill about something that is meant to help simplify a problem... YOU are the problem here. A couple thousand words on this topic is freaking ridiculous. If one has the time to make a topic on a simple idea about simplifying something into another thing so complex requiring an article of this size... then get ye gone to McDonald's and do something useful with that philosophy degree and sling french fries. Because the meaning is that the simplest solution is usually the correct one. And the simplest solution for this Wikipedia article is to send the authors of it to their jobs at their drive through window and let Occam save himself with simplicity denied by these pompous asshats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.245.226.203 (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC) The problem with you razor fanatics is that you make at least two assumptions for each hypothesis, necessarily making the one assumption that you need an explanation at all. Incidentally this is ironic since at least several of your kind would assert that a few major observations people make don't need an explanation. Indeed, the simplest explanations are no explanations. You should be dead. You should have no hypotheses, which would otherwise serve your necessarily biased ends . . . So since heretofore you're not in the ground where you coherently only belong, i.e., since you're not a true razor fanatic . . . just please, stfu . . . while the rest of us pay for your high-tech company's existence where you slave away all-smug-in-yourself as an engineer in the delusion that you have superior knowledge. Huesont (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC) This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic. - SummerPhDv2.0 19:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Trump's Law

I have come across this variously - if there are various possible options in connection with Donald Trump the most stupid one is the most plausible. [1] is one pointer in looking for a more reliable source). 193.132.104.10 (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This has briefly existed as Trump's razor. The article was deleted at AfD last year and it's about to be speedy-deleted as a recreation of a deleted article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

As with Rozar's Razor above and similar 'very low key' things elsewhere an 'acknowledgement that the concept exists' on the relevant talk page probably suffices (as will be picked up on searches). 193.132.104.10 (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Occam's razor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216122608/http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/axm033v1 to http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/axm033v1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Corollary: Rozar's Razor

A corollary of Occam's Razor is Rozar's Razor, which is: Among competing hypotheses, the one that exhibits the greatest amount of symmetry should be selected.

Mseanbrown (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Source? - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Nearly two years later I see your request for source. I just looked and cannot find whatever it was back then that encouraged me to post this. I am seeing that Rozar is backward for Razor, hence the "symmetry" of Rozar|razoR, and I may have fell for someone else's post rather than coming from a citable source. If that's the case, what's the Wiki policy when the person who posts questions the source of their own post in Talk? Do I take this down because it may be unsourceable, or do I leave it up showing the progression of the discussion in case people come back to question it? Mseanbrown (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

You should not delete this section, but feel free to move it to the latest archive (Talk:Occam's razor/Archive 5). Looie496 (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Reverted edit

My edit was reverted for being self referential. Whoops. In order to avert an edit war I'm writing here. Found a journal article that has what I think the passage in question is paraphrased from. It's in item 3 of the 'Models, revolutions, and the struggle for understanding' section and can be found here: http://www.hyle.org/journal/issues/3/hoffman.htm

Thoughts @User:Headbomb? Rap Chart Mike (talk) 12:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm gonna throw it in and see what happens. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2018

Can you change the first reference of the word "razor" to link to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_razor ? Jkumorek (talk) 09:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Danski454 (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Primary Source Embellishments

How did all this crap get added to this article? Occam's razor is "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem," which translates to "Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity," clearly referring to the complexity of a description, and having nothing to do with the number of assumptions made in a hypothesis. Somebody just made that assumption crap up, and somehow got it to stick in Wikipedia.

The intro should have the exact quote, the most direct translation, and the exact meaning of the words in context, without all of this primary source embellishment. Wikipedia is a tertiary resource, not a place to make stuff up. Unless anyone has a problem with it, I'm cleaning this crap up, making the article straight forward according to the tertiary resource verifiability rules of Wikipedia, and deleting all the vague and nonsensical uncited primary source embellishment about hypothetical assumptions. —Jack Autosafe (talk) 07:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are mistaken. The entia that should not be multiplied without necessity are assumptions. The statement Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem is a statement about avoiding unnecessary compounding of premises or assumptions about unknown factors, which has direct bearing on the number of assumptions made. Hoopes (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit using 'stuff you should know'

This edit was reverted because it is based on a blog called "Stuff you should know' which is not a WP:SECONDARY source. Please see WP:SCIRS where a scientific review is needed for this topic. --Zefr (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems the issue here is not whether the blog is a secondary source (it is) but whether it is a reliable secondary source. What are the rules for the reliability of blogs and podcasts? Hoopes (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Hoopes - I agree the main point is whether the source was reliable and also feel that a solid secondary source needs to be based on identifiable reliable primary sources which the SYSK podcast does not provide; I would disqualify it as a good secondary source. Besides being long-winded (44 min), playing the podcast requires sign-up, which users generally don't want. WP:NOTBLOG and WP:EVAL cover why Wikipedia doesn't use social media as sources. --Zefr (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Zefr - The podcast was based upon other literature that I think is likely to fit the criteria of solid sources. I will encourage User:Garnetp to make use of those. The points about Occam's Razor are valid, but they should reference more reliable sources. Hoopes (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to reformat the lede

If nobody objects, I would like to reformat the first part of the lede and also substitute the word explanation for solution, so that it looks like this:

Manuscript illustration of William of Ockham

Occam's razor, Ockham's razor, Ocham's razor (Latin: novacula Occami) or law of parsimony (Latin: lex parsimoniae) is the problem-solving principle that "entities should not be multiplied without necessity." The idea is attributed to English Franciscan friar William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), a scholastic philosopher and theologian who used a preference for simplicity to defend the idea of divine miracles. It is variously paraphrased by statements like,

"the simplest explanation is most likely the right one".

This philosophical razor advocates that when presented with competing hypotheses about the same prediction, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions, and that this is not meant to be a way of choosing between hypotheses that make different predictions.

Similarly, in science, Occam's razor is used as an abductive heuristic in the development of theoretical models rather than as a rigorous arbiter between candidate models...

THE REST IS OK WITH ME: I am confused about the talk of "choosing between different hypotheses" and the term "abductive heuristic". I am not an expert in philosophy, but I do teach science and think it would be nice if students had a quick and informal understanding of a phrase often heard in that context. Guy vandegrift (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Remove the italics with the quote (MOS:ITALIC) and do not list on on a line by itself. So, it seems that is your only change, so no, it's not correct from a formatting point of view. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

If your only change is to change the word "solution" to "explanation", then please read WP:BOLD and make that change yourself, adding the rationale in the edit summary. I can assure you that someone will undo your edit if he/she considers it inferior to the current version. So, do not hesitate to edit. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I changed "solution" to "explanation" because I am absolutely certain "solution" has too many irrelevant connotations (chemical solution, solution to a math problem...). I was writing a physics equation summary sheet for myopenmath.com and wanted to link the Occam's razor to a paragraph and realized the casual reader would have trouble with the current lede. I agree that writing the text in quotations as a separate line is inappropriate, but wonder if we could make it the first or last sentence of a paragraph. In a few minutes I will probably move the paragraph break by one sentence.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

(continuing...) Before making that second edit I decided to look at previous versions of the lede, and here saw this sentence:

(Occam's razor) It is sometimes miss represented by the statement "when presented with two competing ideas, the simpler one is more likely to be correct". This is not a form Occam's razor, but instead is known as the law of parsimony (Latin: lex parsimoniae)) or the law of simplicity.

With that, I decided to just link to wikt:Occam's razor. Good luck sorting this out.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Wording

"Some increases in complexity are sometimes necessary, so there remains a justified general bias toward the simpler of two competing explanations." Wouldn't it be "but", not "so"? Named1.7 (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

​I would agree with that, but ou can make this change yourself; you don't need to post to the talk page. Also note, please add new topics to the bottom of talk pages, not the top (the easiest was is to use the "edit source" tab). Regards, Dan Bloch (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Basically

Occam’s razor is an example of this

“Things are real or fake depending on how complex I think they are” déhanchements (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Tags

Hi All, The amount of off-topic threads in this article is quite baffling. Am I the only one who views large parts of the article as misconstrued? Why on earth some editor felt like discussing theories of evolution or behavioural biology here?

In my understanding, Occam's razor is an ontological principle: One should not multiply entities beyond necessity – i.e., when developing a philosophical model, superfluous entities should be excluded, "shaven off". For example, if Christian theology assumes that God is powerful enough to bestow grace directly, then proposing a role for some intermediaries of him will be superfluous – they should be "shaven" off the model.

As I understand it, the principle has nothing to do with simplicity, ease of explanation, etc.; only with the number of entities (in the ontological sense). — kashmīrī ^TALK 02:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to make WP:BOLD edits to remove off-topic examples. Wikipedia is WP:NOTHOWTO so we do not need them. Having even a few appears to create a WP:COATRACK for more. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, will do in spare time. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Simplest answer is usually right.

I removed this text from the first paragraph as it is not what the Razor means. BillyJones1000 (talk) 07:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

What you dd was obvious, and I understand that you think it's not what it means, but that is the common understanding. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree it is a common misinterpretation. I originally reworded the paragraph to acknowledge that misinterpretation but that was reverted (it was my first attempt at editing so quite likely I did something wrong). BillyJones1000 (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The error was re-introduced and I have corrected it again. If there is a discussion to be had on whether that is what Occam's Razor means, I'd welcome that. BillyJones1000 (talk) 07:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I've added a citation. Hopefully this should resolve the issue. Dan Bloch (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

You misinterpreted even the Britannica. Wow!

Your version, "the simplest explanation is usually the right one", is incorrect. The source doesn't at all suggest that the razor is there to decide which explanation is correct (good) and which one is incorrect (bad). Britannica reads instead: Of two competing theories, the simpler explanation of an entity is to be preferred. As you can see, this is a guidance for philosophical thought ("Don't create superfluous entities", "Prefer explanations with fewer entities") and not a categorical statement on explanations ("X is correct") as you presented it.

I have again removed your version. Please don't re-add without discussion here. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I have again reverted you, not because the supplied source contains the phrase, but because you have not done a simple Google search on "the simplest explanation is usually the right one". I could WP:OVERREF this (https://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/occams-razor.htm, https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/926689-the-simplest-explanation-is-usually-the-right-one, etc.) but instead, I think the lead should 1) state this (and no ref is necessary per WP:BLUE) and 2) go on to explain why this is not what the razor actually states. Do you disagree with this approach? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

You want to source a philosophy article to HowStuffWorks? Srsly? Or to Goodreads.com which is explicitly named at RSN as an unreliable source? Yes, sorry, I disagree with adding badly sourced and OR "explanations" to technical articles. By the way, a Google search for "the simplest explanation is usually the right one" brings virtually ZERO reliable sources, the result page being dominated by links to Pinterest and Twitter. So yes, I'm removing it again, I'd appreciate if you do not reinsert without discussion. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm making the point that this is BLUE. You're currently in an edit war and I suggest you try to fix the sentence so that it correctly states that this is an oversimplification that is commonly used, but then (with whatever source you want) state what it actually means. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this approach (which is exactly what I originally did before it was reverted of course) and will make the change suggested.

Much as I hate to jump in when everyone is agreeing with each other, the current wording, "the simplest explanation is usually the best one", is a correct (and sourced) paraphrase of Occam's razor. "To be preferred", used in the citation, is equivalent to "best". The earlier "The simplest explanation is usually the right one" was incorrect, which is why I changed it last week. Can someone can explain what I'm missing here? If not, I'm going to remove "inaccurately". Dan Bloch (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Danbloch: Disagree. The sentence: "You should prefer X", is NOT equivalent to: "Y is bad". Occam's razor: "Thou shalt not posit unnecessary entities" does not mean that a theory with extra entities is "bad", "incorrect", etc. Correctness of any theory/explanation, simply, is beyond the razor's scope. I'm not sure I've managed to explain the difference between what is a rule of thumb in problem solving, and some weird categorical statements "good/bad" about some (undefined) explanations. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

This may be akin to our KISS principle: Keep Wiki markup simple. It doesn't mean, of course, that your complex Wiki markup will be "incorrect", "bad", etc. Only, by using an unnecessarily complex markup you'll make your code less legible for others, you'll have a higher risk of parsing errors, etc. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I have a different reliable source which describes Occam's razor in so many words: "In layman’s terms, the simplest explanation is usually the best one." Consider my question above suitably modified. Dan Bloch (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Danbloch I changed the text to include 'inaccurately' before I saw your comment sorry, so was not trying to extend an edit war. However, I do think that the 'layman's terms' description you cite is unhelpful to someone trying to understand the Razor. BillyJones1000 (talk) 13:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I regret The Atlantic is not a reliable source on philosophy, esp. given that Philip Ball is a writer (but not an academic) with background in physics and chemistry. An academic source is needed please. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kashmiri, I'm sure you're aware that Wikipedia doesn't require academic sources (except for medical articles). But since there does seem to be a consensus here, I don't have a problem with it. Thanks, all. Carry on. Dan Bloch (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, if incorrect language is commonly used, it not only must be discussed, an explanation as to why it is incorrect should be provided or we should not be stating that it is incorrect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

"Commonly" feels like an overstatement – you barely provided two RS-compliant sources of such a wording, and Google shows not much more. I recommend removing the wording altogether since it may be confusing to readers, and also does not reflect the remainder of the article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, WP:BLUE. You will not get sources that satisfy your criteria for reliability so I don't intend to play your game. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Dubious

It is sometimes misrepresented in pop culture and other media by some form of the statement "The simplest solution is most likely the right one." [1]. This is not a form of Occam's razor, but instead is known as the law of parsimony (Latin: lex parsimoniae)) or the law of simplicity.

German version of the article (which is a Good Article) says they are synonyms --Bageense^(disc.) 14:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Not misrepresented at all. If the English translation of the latin is "Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity" then "the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one" is a perfectly acceptable paraphrase in the English language. By definition if your reducing the compexity of a theory down to it's minimum explanation (i.e. not multiplying beyond neccesity) then you are postulating the simplest hypbothesis possible. To whit "simplest explanation". If it's being stated as a premise that theories shouldn't be multiplied beyond necessesity it can justifiably be interpreted that the reason you would want to do this is to derive the most likely correct theory. Why else would you be placing a rule for the creation of a hypothesis? Nobody would ever want to end up with anything but the most likely theory to be correct. So you're left with "the simplest explanation (or theory/hypothesis) being most likely to be the correct one" as a perfectly acceptable interpretation (if not literal translation) of the Latin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.102.211 (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The intro

"Occam's razor, Ockham's razor, Ocham's razor (Latin: novacula Occami), or the principle of parsimony or law of parsimony (Latin: lex parsimoniae) is the problem-solving principle that 'entities should not be multiplied without necessity'..."[underlines and bold mine]

Reading this gave me a good chuckle. I can't decide whether the joke was intentional. The Nicodene (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Earliest formulation of Entities are not to be multiplied without necessity

Re: Ockham stated the principle in various ways, but the most popular version, "Entities are not to be multiplied without necessity" (Non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate) was formulated by the Irish Franciscan philosopher John Punch in his 1639 commentary on the works of Duns Scotus.

Robert Andrews has provided evidence that the dictum was earlier stated in the early 1400s by Bero Magni de Ludosia and his follower Magister Thomas. See Robert Andrews, Bero Magni de Ludosia, Questions on the Soul: A Medieval Swedish Philosopher on Life. Stockholm: Sällskapet Runica et Mediaevalia (2016) 279 n. 33: “Magister Thomas presents the earliest known appearance of one version of Ockham’s Razor: ‘Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate.’ Magister Thomas Recapitulatio III q. 15, f. 270v. Bero’s close formulation is in Lib. II q. 18 n. 77: ‘non sint multiplicanda entia sine necessitate’.”

John Poncius (Ponce, Punch) himself states, indicating that the axiom was common before his day, that “concerning this kind of necessity I understand that common axiom, which the Scholastics use so frequently: ‘Entities should not be multiplied without necessity’.” (In Ioannes Duns Scotus Quaestiones in libros Sententiarum III dist. 34 q. un. (Opera omnia 7,1, ed. Wadding 1639) 728a: “et de huiusmodi necessitate intelligo illud axioma vulgare, quo tam frequenter vtuntur Scholastici: Non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate.”)

The mistaken credit to Poncius has been repeated numerous times.

It is very difficult to prove an earliest occurrence.

Robert Andrews boethius@hotmail.com

81.237.236.94 (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Simplicity vs Likelihood, Language & Etymology Issue

Just came from Dexter New Blood after hearing a show character use Occam's Razor incorrectly describing it as when faced with searching for an explanation - the "simplest" one is the "right" one.

This is incorrect.

Using the term "simple" has frankly been a poor choice of wording in the past that has seemingly lead down this path of people assuming it is entirely to do with complexity of explanation or solution. I know someone briefly mentioned this at the top of the article but just want to put this here for complete clarification rather than seeing a very common misconception spread due to poor definition.

I'm going to give you an example of what I'm talking about to entice thought and provoke further understanding that may help guide this page in future.

A husband and wife are sleeping in bed together. The next day it is found that the wife has been murdered. She has died from asphyxiation and has marks on her neck.

You could hypothesize "the husband smothered her with a pillow" or "the husband strangled her with his bare hands". Let's look at these.

Both are equally simple. One is more likely.

Given that there are marks on her neck though, strangulation is more likely. Occam's razor would lean that you can reasonably assume, the husband strangled his wife. Now you could say "yes but we had an indicator", that's exactly the point. Occam's razor doesn't mean you reject probability for simplicity because that doesn't make sense.

A further example. Take the same situation but let's say the neighbor did it instead.

Hypothetically let's say new evidence came to light that the neighbor was driven to murder after a complex love triangle of deceit and lies. Now let us say the neighbor after seeing the police arrive, gets in his car and hits the gas pedal as hard as they can. The police give chase, get in a brief firefight with him and eventually he is arrested. In essence, he acts very guilty. The police search his premises and discover an elaborate plan to murder his object of affections, the wife.

The simpler explanation is still that the husband strangled her. However because we have new evidence, the probability has shifted, although the newer explanation is more complex it is less likely.

The problem with using the term simple, is that a hypothesis can be very simple but also very unlikely. It doesn't make sense for Occam's razor to suggest a simple AND unlikely explanation is correct or to be assumed. I urge you to read that last sentence again for emphasis and think it through.

I don't necessarily think it is this page's fault. This has been a common misconception about the idea for a long time. Most likely because the sources available are frankly not great. There is a broader issue here that a preference for simplicity has become associated with the concept of Occam's razor, thus people are now assuming that anything to do with a preference for simplicity relates to Occam's razor. We are nearly on the border of just associating Occam's razor to minimalism. This is also incorrect.

To be clear, Occam's razor is about probability; not simplicity of outcome. Otherwise it does not make sense, at all.

I am saying this now because the brakes need to be pumped here before the meaning is lost permanently. We are at the point where a mainstream television show believes Occam's razor is essentially:

"The most simple explanation is usually correct".

This is borderline dangerously wrong.

86.41.240.167 (talk) 07:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I fully agree with you that such a simplification is completely wrong. But I also disagree with your example. As I wrote above, Occam's razor is an ontological principle – the term entia ('entities') is a technical term meaning 'real things'. Entia does not mean, "possibilities", "probabilities", "likelihood", etc., as you proposed.

Also, the razor must be viewed in its historical context – it originated at the time in the history of Christian philosophy where the latter struggled to explain the increasingly complex reality using millennium-old Biblical constructs. The time of questioning why there is devil, why Satan, what's their role and nature, how God bestows grace, etc. The time of asking how many types of angels exist, what's their role and nature, and how many of them can dance on the head of a pin. The times that directly led to the Reformation. In this context, Occam appealed to his colleagues: Do not come up with entities that are not strictly necessary.

Nothing to do with modern problem-solving advices as some editors proposed. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree it is entirely an ontological principle. Presumably though the motivation for his appeal is based in pragmatism as opposed to aesthetics or minimalism? Pragmatic in the sense that "what you make up will likely be wrong" versus an aesthetic desire for reduction of entities, i.e simplicity. I'm coming from a background of mostly statistical inference and Bayesian inference so I'm completely ignorant. What was Occam's motivation if that is known at all? I tried to find a good source but really struggled.

86.41.240.167 (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Ontology

In modern engineering terms, we can express this guiding policy as a loss function. In other words, we can assert that Nature optimizes for economy. This gives the most likely reason for the truth of Occam's razor and removes it from the category of occult principle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeBee2020 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

"Don't add useless gears to a gearbox as they will slow it down"? — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)