I searched PF for "occam razor" and found 20 pages of threads. Hence it appears to be a very important argument. However, I think in reality that's is one of the most elaborate fallacies. Suppose that A causes B and corrolates directly and that A causes C and corrolates directly, then is follows that B and C also corrolate. Suppose that we discover B and C and its correlation but we do not know of not A. So logically we would like to explain the correlation between B and C and there is always a deducted hypothesis to explain why B causes C (or vice versa). Searching for evidence we also may find D and E, which are all caused by interactions of the unknown A with B and C and we consider our hypothesis substantiated and we promote it into the theory of B, causing C,..E. Even if F,G,H,I, which are discovered later, practically refute the theory, we consider that anomalies, measuring errors, contamination of evidence, or it's simply ignored. Then somebody stumbles upon A and realizes that A causes B and A causes C and that B does not cause C and even that FGHI could be logically explained with A as ultimate cause. Now the idea that our theory is wrong that B is not causing C appears to be hard to accept so what happens?: "Go away, we have already B and C, who needs A, Occam Razor". So, here is the appeal to this very special rule, which sounds excellent but in reality is a fallacy since it's only recommending a course of action: "choose the simplest". However, the truth is completely independent of our choice and will not adjust to it. Choosing the more complex solution (if available - since A was not) would have had the advantage to help understanding the complexity of the matter and would have allowed for more flexibility fine tuning the hypothesis to the complex reality. I think we should reconsider the logic of Occam razor. Discussion?