Anti-Materialist

Why is the simplest answer to be preferred. This is not at all consistent with reality. Almost nothing is simple. The simplest answer may be the easiest to work with - but it is rarely the most accurate.

Whenever we think we have topic all figured out, someone comes up with a more complicated explanation that actually works better.

In history, all things having been equal, how often has the simplest answer proven to be 100 percent accurate?

We should make no assumptions until such time as we have all the answers. It is better to say we don't know, than to say we'll just assume the simplest answer is correct, all things being equal.

Abacus

To be more accurate, Occam's razor states that all other things being equal, the simplest explanation is to be preferred. If someone comes along with a more complex explanation that is also a more accurate explanation, of course that explanation should then be preferred.

Anti-Materialist

Right - whichever is more accurate should be preferred.

I just don't see why the simplest explanation, all things being equal, should be preferred.

Reality is not simple.

What I am really hoping for is some examples of when Occams razor was applied, and then the conclusion was later shown to be true - or examples where it was applied, and the conclusion was later shown to be false.

I am going to introduce a new razor - call it Jonathan's razor.

"Make no assumptions"

Just don't shave with it - I wouldn't want you to assume that it wont cut you or anything.

Demosthenes

But Occam's Razor is only valid for situations where there are mulltiple explanation equally up to the task of explaining something.

If an explanation is not only complex but also more accurate then occam's razor cannot be used to apply to that case.

Besides the razor isn't mean to be weld blindly, it's merely a guideline. Even Occam himself warned against using the razor foolishly and without foresight.

Abacus

Probably about the only time that "all things are equal" is in situations where we don't know jack shit and there is no evidence to speak of.

At any rate, I disagree with your contention that reality is not simple. I would say that the fact that we can formulate theories and very often make accurate predictions from them is evidence that reality, at a fundamental level, is simple. I know that if this weren't so, my job as an electrical engineer would be much more difficult, if not impossible.

fando

Reality can have simple rules with surprisingly complex results. Observe, for instance, Conway's game of life (cellular automata). Usually, Occam's razor is applied to rules, not the systems that result.

tribalbeeyatch

"One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything." -- William of Occam (or Ockham)

It's hard for me to find a problem with sticking to a minimally sufficient answer. To do otherwise is to be overwhelmed by an infinity of possibilities, the majority of which are obviously not true, and no means of distinguishing between them. Any minimally sufficient answer can be made more cumbersome by adding a few gremlins and faeries, but if they don't improve an answer's explanatory power, then why bother?

PandaJoe

This is why I hate it when people misquote Occam's Razor. Unless it's always understood that "simple" means "that which contains fewer assumptions", "the simplest answer is preferred" is in no way Occam's Razor. Otherwise we get into a pointless argument over which explanation is "simple".

Anti-Materialist

The reason we should bother adding gremlins and faeries to explanations is because reality always seems to throw gremlins and faeries at us!

Quantum mechanics is very good at making predictions - and it is fraught with gremlins and faeries.

Before humanity acquired the evidence to pursue quantum physics, the world view of reality on the sub-atomic scale was fairly simple. Had they all gone around applying occams razor - or at least the misquoted much used version of occams razor - during that time, then no one would have bothered to look for the evidence that lead to the formulation of quantum theory.

I am the ultimate skeptic. I disbelieve in all the religious world views I have been exposed to. However, I also disbelieve in all of the materialistic world views I have been exposed to - mainly because none of them are sufficient in convincing me that you can get something from nothing.

Some folks have come up with mathematically consistent models for a self-creating universe - something which is quite an accomplishment. However, I see no reason why I should believe those models are the likeliest explanation. They may be the simplest explanation - and at that point they start quoting (or misquoting, as another poster pointed out) occams razor to say that because theirs is the simplest explanation, we should believe it.

Well - I say horse poop to that. In my experience, the simplest explanation to any event or phenomenon never holds up to deep analysis.

We should look for Gremlins and Faeries because history has taught us that we are going to find them whether we want to or not.

Normal

What we have here is a failure to understand Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor does not exclude a system which is more complicated that explains more, it chooses, between two systems, which explain an equal amount, the simpler system. Example, if you were trying to explain gravity with 3 forces, it would be more correct to explain it with just one, if both the 3 force theory and the 1 force theory account for all the same details. Bad example maybe (I'm tired), but hopefully you get the point.