What is Occam's Razor and Why Does it Matter?

  • Thread starter zoobyshoe
  • Start date
In summary: I always want to say, "So how come you're not an expert on communism?"Originally posted by selfAdjoint Nah, I don't think that who saw the report contributes anything to its veracity. None of those high ranking muckymucks were trained analysts. I am always puzzled about this line of argument by the believers; Jack Sarfatti is always going, "Gee the Communist... blah blah blah"... and I always want to say, "So how come you're not an expert on communism?" The Occam's Razor principle is that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily, which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories
  • #1
zoobyshoe
6,510
1,290
Occam's razor n[William of Occam](ca.1837):a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities

Merram-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, 2000

If we don't look for explanations of unexplained phenomena in terms of known quantities first then a kind of speculative free for all will ensue: flying saucers are from another planet, flying saucers are from another dimension, flying saucers are from the hollow interior of the earth, flying saucers are time travelers from the future.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I think you've got William of Occam misdated. He was medieval, not 19th century.
 
  • #3
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
I think you've got William of Occam misdated. He was medieval, not 19th century.
The date appears to refer to William, but is in fact an approximate date for the first known usage of the term as defined here. Many of the words in the Merriam-Webster's are dated thus. Sorry for the confusion.

Edit: The tenth edition says (ca.1837)

The eleventh edition (most recent) gives medieval dates:

Merriam-Webster OnLine
Address:http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Occam's+razor

I suppose the tenth edition actually contained an error.

Try going here and looking up Occam's razor, you might get the version that says (ca.1837):
Merriam-Webster OnLine
Address:http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
 
Last edited:
  • #4
A lot of folks prefer speculative free-for-all. It is democratic. Nothing is worse than some know-it-all kill-joy wrecking the fun.
 
  • #5
Originally posted by quartodeciman
A lot of folks prefer speculative free-for-all. It is democratic.
Well, sometimes it's democratic. Sometimes, though, the ones who believe flying discs are from another planet feel the need to gather in the desert at night and invoke the mothership to vaporize all those who believe the discs are from the hollow earth.
 
  • #6
I don't think they have had a very great success rate at that, Zoob.
 
  • #7
Explain please:

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo20.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Explain please:

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo20.pdf
Unfortunately that's one o' them pdf thingies my webtv can't get to. Whatever it says, look for the explanation first in terms of known quantities.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Explain please:

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo20.pdf
I don't have to explain it...anyone trying to use that document to make a claim has to explain it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Explain please:

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo20.pdf

All I could manage to read in that blurry image was that pilots reported a bright object, radar confirmed it, and the pilots had visual aftereffects from the brightness.

Is there some reason you know that it couldn't have been a meteor? Perhaps a single body breaking in two to give the illusion (to those who sayw it only in flashes) of supernatural acceleration?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
All I could manage to read in that blurry image was that pilots reported a bright object, radar confirmed it, and the pilots had visual aftereffects from the brightness.

Is there some reason you know that it couldn't have been a meteor? Perhaps a single body breaking in two to give the illusion (to those who sayw it only in flashes) of supernatural acceleration?

If you read the entire document, including the intial summary and the routing list, you will see that this is an intelligence report that went to nearly all of the highest levels of goverment. Mulitiple eyewitnesses and pilots confirm RADAR data. I suggest that you study the report before commenting further.
 
  • #12
Originally posted by Zero
I don't have to explain it...anyone trying to use that document to make a claim has to explain it.

I didn't make a claim. I asked you to explain it.
 
  • #13
Here is the Joint Chiefs of Staff Reports on the same incident:

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo17.pdf

Gotta go for now. :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
It seems that Ivan's link may have been intended as some sort of challenge to Occam's razor.

I don't, and no one should be, claiming anything to the effect that it can be used to explain anything away, or to explain everything in terms of known quantities.

It is a guidline about how to go about investigating unknown phenomena: start in terms of known quantities.

It also won't help you if you can't collect enough evidence to come to a solid conclusion.

That's where the simpler theory being preferable to the complex theory comes in.
 
  • #15
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
If you read the entire document, including the intial summary and the routing list, you will see that this is an intelligence report that went to nearly all of the highest levels of goverment. Mulitiple eyewitnesses and pilots confirm RADAR data. I suggest that you study the report before commenting further.

Nah, I don't think that who saw the report contributes anything to its veracity. None of those high ranking muckymucks were trained analysts. I am always puzzled about this line of argument by the believers; Jack Sarfatti is always going, "Gee the Communist high command! "Gee The CIA!" back some claim or other as if we hadn't all seen how foolish and self serving all those agencies can be.

And multiple pilots and confirmed RADAR were implicit in my original question. I still don't think you have ruled out a breaking up meteoroid in what you have posted here on the subject.
 
  • #16
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
It seems that Ivan's link may have been intended as some sort of challenge to Occam's razor.

No, it was to put into proper context the UFO comments made.
 
  • #17
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Nah, I don't think that who saw the report contributes anything to its veracity. None of those high ranking muckymucks were trained analysts. I am always puzzled about this line of argument by the believers; Jack Sarfatti is always going, "Gee the Communist high command! "Gee The CIA!" back some claim or other as if we hadn't all seen how foolish and self serving all those agencies can be.

And multiple pilots and confirmed RADAR were implicit in my original question. I still don't think you have ruled out a breaking up meteoroid in what you have posted here on the subject.

Well, if that's your best attempt at objectivity so be it.
 
  • #18
Sarcasm about my "objectivity"? You posted the thing and said "explain it". I posted an explanation and you said I didn't read all the routings that it went through. I said (I believe correctly) that routings are not evidence and my explanation for the primary event has not been refuted. So I have failed some test in objectivity? Sorry to accuse another mentor of spouting bunk, but that's what it is.
 
  • #19
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Sarcasm about my "objectivity"? You posted the thing and said "explain it". I posted an explanation and you said I didn't read all the routings that it went through. I said (I believe correctly) that routings are not evidence and my explanation for the primary event has not been refuted. So I have failed some test in objectivity? Sorry to accuse another mentor of spouting bunk, but that's what it is.

It seems to me that you haven't even read the paper. If the paper reflects a real event, then the meteor explanation is ridiculous. Sorry, but that's what it is.
 
  • #20
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
No, it was to put into proper context the UFO comments made.
What "proper" context did it put them in?
 
  • #21
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
What "proper" context did it put them in?

It provides a nice snapshot of the phenomenon. It also provides insight into the kinds of questions that need to be answered. [Sorry Zooby, there is just too much to start posting as jpgs]. Since it comes as an intelligence report that went to the white house, the joint chiefs of staff, the NSA, and many other high level offices, the credibility of the report is already established through defense intelligence. What we read about is something very strange indeed.

Of course, I guess it is possible that every cheesy UFO report goes to the president.
 
  • #22
Ivan,

I finally was able to read the original report in full. Both it and your later link to the joint chiefs of staff report locked up my computer. Thisa time I wa sjust about to cancel the pdf task when the thing finally came up. So having read it I agree it can't have been a meteor. What it can have been though is a made up story by those Iranian pilots, to explain some dereliction or other or just to spoof the brass. Did their planes have cameras? I don't see any reference to them. I might have missed it and I am not going into that twenty minute torture again to check on it.
 
  • #23
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
flying saucers are...
You forgot 'inventions of overactive imaginations.'
I didn't make a claim. I asked you to explain it.
That's burden-of-proof shifting. By posting the link you imply a claim and then leave it up to us to disprove it, alleviating yourself of the need to prove it.

But wait...
If the paper reflects a real event, then the meteor explanation is ridiculous.
Is that a claim?

Incidentally, my interpretation (its been a while since I've seen that and I also had trouble opening it) was that it was probably a helicopter.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Ivan,

I finally was able to read the original report in full. Both it and your later link to the joint chiefs of staff report locked up my computer. Thisa time I wa sjust about to cancel the pdf task when the thing finally came up. So having read it I agree it can't have been a meteor. What it can have been though is a made up story by those Iranian pilots, to explain some dereliction or other or just to spoof the brass. Did their planes have cameras? I don't see any reference to them. I might have missed it and I am not going into that twenty minute torture again to check on it.

Well, I can appreciate your problems. These government sites can be problematic.

I agree that this is not proof of anything, however it can hardly be casually dismissed. Also, I am not aware of any film footage.

For credibility arguments we must consider the source and the distribution. How often do you think the white house gets UFO reports? How sure would you have to be as a high ranking intelligence officer before forwarding the report to the President? I think that with this report and hundreds like it, we must consider the real possibility that something very unusual took place. Reports like this are the core of the evidence to answer; not claims of ET. I am convinced that if this kind of event can be explained, the rest of Ufology rests in the balance. If these events are real but can't be explained, then I guess I'm stuck with Art Bell and the Great Mother Ship.
 
  • #25
As for William, I think he believed in UFOs; he called them angels.
 
  • #26
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Of course, I guess it is possible that every cheesy UFO report goes to the president.
When Grover Cleveland was president, so did every cheese.No, I'm still not grasping why you posted the link. My opening post pointed out that without the razor, things can quickly degenerate into free for all speculation. I cited a list of speculations I had heard about UFO origins to illustrate. Then sA brought up his reservations about the date in my definition, then Quart started some humorous banter, then you posted your link.

"Explain this:" has the ring of a challenge, which is why I figured you were calling the usefullness of Occam's razor into question, but then you explain you meant to put the comments into persepective. So by "comments" did you mean the joking?
 
  • #27
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
When Grover Cleveland was president, so did every cheese.


No, I'm still not grasping why you posted the link. My opening post pointed out that without the razor, things can quickly degenerate into free for all speculation. I cited a list of speculations I had heard about UFO origins to illustrate. Then sA brought up his reservations about the date in my definition, then Quart started some humorous banter, then you posted your link.

"Explain this:" has the ring of a challenge, which is why I figured you were calling the usefullness of Occam's razor into question, but then you explain you meant to put the comments into persepective. So by "comments" did you mean the joking?

Well, if one is to judge the application of Occams Razor wrt UFOs as was indicated, then it helps to review a genuine case; not what we see on TV or in the National Enquirer. This was not intended as a challenge to Occams Razor; I already kicked that one around.
 
  • #28
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Well, if one is to judge the application of Occams Razor wrt UFOs as was indicated, then it helps to review a genuine case; not what we see on TV or in the National Enquirer.
Here is how Occam's razor applies to all unexplained phenomena: one should first investigate it in terms of known quantities.

If we were a team of investigators allowed access to all the people involved in the case you cited, all the evidence such as flight tapes, radar records, and so on, then we would first start investigating in terms of known terrestrial things. We would NOT first try to rule flying discs from the hollow interior of the Earth in or out.

In the event we couldn't find a definitive proof for a cause in known terms, then we might begin to theorise. Simpler theories are to be preferred over more complex. The theory that a UFO sighting was caused by seeing a secret new military craft is simpler, for example, than the theory that beings from another planet have arrived on earth.

The reason Occam's razor is a very good guideline is that without it the result can become a free-for-all speculation that says nothing about the unexplained phenomenon but amounts, instead, to a rorschach test: "I'm going to give you a sentence containing the words UFO, fighter pilots, joint chiefs of staff, and white house and I want you to tell me what thoughts pop into your mind."

This was not intended as a challenge to Occams Razor; I already kicked that one around.
When was this? I don't recall this coming up before.
 

What is Occam's Razor?

Occam's Razor is a philosophical principle that states the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. It suggests that when faced with multiple explanations for a phenomenon, the one with the fewest assumptions should be preferred.

Why is Occam's Razor important?

Occam's Razor is important because it provides a way for scientists to choose between competing theories or explanations. By selecting the simplest one, it helps to avoid unnecessary complexity and makes the scientific process more efficient.

What is the origin of Occam's Razor?

Occam's Razor is named after the 14th-century philosopher and theologian William of Ockham, although the principle itself has been used by earlier philosophers such as Aristotle and Avicenna.

How is Occam's Razor applied in science?

In science, Occam's Razor is used as a heuristic or rule of thumb for choosing between competing hypotheses. It is often used in the development of theories and in the evaluation of evidence, but it is not considered a definitive or absolute principle.

Can Occam's Razor be wrong?

Occam's Razor is not infallible and can be wrong in certain situations. It is a useful tool but should not be blindly applied. In some cases, a more complex explanation may be necessary to account for all the evidence, and Occam's Razor should not be used to dismiss such explanations without proper evaluation.

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
54
Views
6K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
3
Views
935
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
0
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Back
Top