Changes

'''Ockham's Razor''' is one of the most widely used [[ontological principle|ontological principles]] in all fields of applied logic, most notably [[philosophy]], [[theology]], and [[systemology]]. It is attributed to [[William of Ockham]], an English Franciscan [[Friar]] who lived in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries.  Briefly, it can be stated as follows:

'''Ockham's Razor''' is one of the most widely used [[ontological principle|ontological principles]] in all fields of applied logic, most notably [[philosophy]], [[theology]], and [[systemology]]. It is attributed to [[William of Ockham]], an English Franciscan [[Friar]] who lived in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries.  Briefly, it can be stated as follows:

:"From any set of equally probable explanations, we should assume the one which makes the least [[fundamental assumptions]] is correct, until we have reason to believe otherwise."

:"From any set of equally probable explanations, we should assume the one which makes the fewest [[fundamental assumptions]] is correct, until we have reason to believe otherwise"

This is different from the shortest explanation, the shortest logical argument, and the simplest explanation, and the razor is often incorrectly quoted and/or applied. Some people have argued that these criteria qualify as better principles than the razor.  Note also that Ockham's Razor is not logically provable, and could just as easily be misleading rather than helpful.

This is different from the shortest explanation, the shortest logical argument, and the simplest explanation, and the razor is often incorrectly quoted and/or applied. Some people have argued that these criteria qualify as better principles than the razor.

 

Occam's razor is a ''guiding principle''.  That is, it says that the explanation with the fewest assumption ''is to be preferred'', not ''is correct''.  The explanation with the fewest assumptions can turn out to be the wrong explanation.

 

Ockham's razor can be illustrated be the following common example. A tree is found uprooted in the middle of a field with no apparent cause. Two people offer competing hypotheses for how this occured. Person A says that there must have been a storm last night, which combined with heavy rainfall the previous day, resulted in the uprooting of the tree. Person B says that last night aliens visited the planet Earth, and uprooted the tree as a message to mankind. There is no way of determining which of these hypotheses is correct after the fact, but as A's hypothesis makes far fewer fundamental assumptions (basically that the planet Earth has weather) than B's hypothesis (basically that aliens exist, have a way of finding humans in the cosmos, have a way of traversing space to reach our planet, could topple such a tree without being noticed, and so forth), we should assume A is correct and that a storm felled the tree unless B can provide some other evidence to support their claim.

Ockham's razor can be illustrated be the following common example. A tree is found uprooted in the middle of a field with no apparent cause. Two people offer competing hypotheses for how this occured. Person A says that there must have been a storm last night, which combined with heavy rainfall the previous day, resulted in the uprooting of the tree. Person B says that last night aliens visited the planet Earth, and uprooted the tree as a message to mankind. There is no way of determining which of these hypotheses is correct after the fact, but as A's hypothesis makes far fewer fundamental assumptions (basically that the planet Earth has weather) than B's hypothesis (basically that aliens exist, have a way of finding humans in the cosmos, have a way of traversing space to reach our planet, could topple such a tree without being noticed, and so forth), we should assume A is correct and that a storm felled the tree unless B can provide some other evidence to support their claim.

[[John Wisdom]] and [[Anthony Flew]] indirectly use the razor in [[The Parable of the Gardener]].

[[John Wisdom]] and [[Anthony Flew]] indirectly use the razor in [[The Parable of the Gardener]].

Among its practical applications, Occam's Razor has been used by both sides in the debate between [[theism]] and [[atheism]]. Let us take for an example the origin of intelligent life on Earth. One possibility for intelligent life is [[evolution]] via [[natural selection]]. A second possibility is God. Advocates of the Anthropic Principle might contend that evolution is the means through which God works. However, Occam's Razor allows us to eliminate God from the hypothesis, since the idea is an unnecessary assumption. The 'simpler' explanation (that which makes fewer fundamental assumptions) is that God had nothing to do with the development of Intelligent Life and that it came about as a result of natural processes. Therefore, the earlier explanation is the most reasonable to believe. Of course proponents of theistic evolution might include a different scenario.  Let us assume a man needs to go from Boise Idaho to Billings Montana. He sets off and through an incredible stroke of luck just happens to walk from Boise to Billings - or he got a map and a compass and then walked. Well, using a map and compass are extra steps, therefore, based upon the same logic used above, it is evident the man merely walked it and just happened to get from Boise to Billings through chance.

 

Among its practical applications, Occam's Razor has been used by atheists to argue against the existence of God.<ref>The Skeptic's Dictionary</ref>

Let us take for an example the origin of intelligent life on Earth. One possibility for intelligent life is naturalistic [[evolution]] via [[natural selection]]. A second possibility is that God used evolution as His means of creation. Occam's Razor allows us to eliminate God from the hypothesis, since the idea is an unnecessary additional assumption. The 'simpler' explanation (that which makes fewer fundamental assumptions) is that God had nothing to do with the development of Intelligent Life and that it came about as a result of natural processes. Therefore, the earlier explanation is the most reasonable to believe.

 

The problem with this use of the principle is that it assumes that naturalistic evolution ''can'' explain the origin of intelligent life.  Most theists would argue that God is not an unnecessary additional assumption, but a ''necessary'' additional assumption.  Creationists would further argue that ''evolution'' is an unnecessary additional assumption&mdash;If you assume that God could create life, there is no need to assume that He needed to use evolution to do so.

 

Christian apologist [[William Lane Craig]] also has used Occam's razor to argue against [[polytheism]]. He argues that the [[Kalam Cosmological Argument]] argues against atheism, and that Occam's Razor would only require the existence of one god. <ref>Strobel, 2004</ref>

Christian apologist [[William Lane Craig]] also has used Occam's razor to argue against [[polytheism]]. He argues that the [[Kalam Cosmological Argument]] argues against atheism, and that Occam's Razor would only require the existence of one god. <ref>Strobel, Lee. The Case for a Creator. Zondervan 2004</ref>

* [http://skepdic.com/occam.html Occam's razor] (The Skeptic's Dictionary).

* Grigg, Russell, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5096/ Occam’s Razor and creation/evolution] 22nd May 2007 (Creation Ministries International).

* Strobel, Lee. The Case for a Creator. Zondervan 2004

==References==

== Notes ==

[[Category:Ontological Principles]]

[[Category:Ontological Principles]]