Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
67 bytes added ,  23:42, March 16, 2009
The new up-front simple version over-simplified it; copyedits.
Line 1: Line 1: −
'''Ockham's Razor''' is the principle that the simplest explanation is the best.  
+
'''Ockham's Razor''' is a principle that can loosely be described as ''the simplest explanation is the one that is probably correct''.
−
It is one of the most widely used [[ontological principle]]s 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]]s 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 fewest [[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"
Line 10: Line 11:  
== Illustration ==
 
== Illustration ==
   −
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 occurred. 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 by 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 occurred. 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]].
Line 18: Line 19:  
Among its practical applications, Occam's Razor has been used by [[atheist]]s to argue against the existence of God.<ref>The Skeptic's Dictionary</ref>
 
Among its practical applications, Occam's Razor has been used by [[atheist]]s 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.
 
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.
 +
 
It is, however, important to note that Ockham himself did not accept this reasoning; indeed, he considered the existence of God and the authority of Scripture to be truths which trumped the principle.  While Occam's Razor is frequently articulated as "The simplest explanation is to be preferred," what he actually said was "For nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture." <ref>http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Medi/MediZhen.htm</ref>
 
It is, however, important to note that Ockham himself did not accept this reasoning; indeed, he considered the existence of God and the authority of Scripture to be truths which trumped the principle.  While Occam's Razor is frequently articulated as "The simplest explanation is to be preferred," what he actually said was "For nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture." <ref>http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Medi/MediZhen.htm</ref>
  
nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254

edits

Navigation menu