Simplicity, Not Simplism: In Defence of Occam's Razor as Scientific Necessity
Description
Occam's Razor (also known as the principle of parsimony and ontological reductionism) is regularly dismissed as an ornamental vestige—no longer worthy of its longstanding status as a fundamental scientific principle. An interpretation thereof called Verificational Simplicity or Blind Faith Parsimony is offered, which: (a) identifies the most scientific hypothesis as that yielding the fullest account of corresponding data while necessitating least verifiability-averse assumption (b) underlies all integral scientific values and (c) is of paramount scientific importance. Three supporting arguments are employed. Argument 1 highlights the often-overlooked agility with which Occam's Razor accords to latest data. Argument 2 shows that without parsimony to block ad hoc hypotheses, falsifiability is impossible—rendering science itself untenable. While argument 3 covers the enormous burden of proof reasonable corresponding dismissals must shoulder.
Files
Additional details
References
- Carroll, R. T. (2008, June 22). Ad hoc hypothesis. The Skeptic's Dictionary. https://web.archive.org/web/20251001215830/https://skepdic.com/adhoc.html
- Dictionary.com. (2018). Occam's razor. https://web.archive.org/web/20251001203111/https://www.dictionary.com/e/pop-culture/occams-razor/
- Encyclopedia of Science and Religion. (2003). Falsifiability. Macmillan Reference USA. https://web.archive.org/web/20251001203814/https://www.encyclopedia.com/science-and-technology/physics/science-general/falsifiability
- Hitchens, C. (2007). God is not great: How religion poisons everything. Twelve.
- McFadden, J. (2023). Razor sharp: The role of Occam's razor in science. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1530, 8–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.15086
- McHugh, K. (2024). A scientist's journey: learning to communicate science for improved nature connectedness. The Living Lab, 1(1), 86–107. https://doi.org/10.20933/40000104. Available at https://web.archive.org/web/20251001210254/https://discovery.dundee.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/140249122/5._McHugh_K._86-107_issue_1.pdf
- Oxford Reference. (2017). Science and technology. Available at https://www.oxfordreference.com/page/134 (as cited in McHugh, 2024, p. 88).
- Popper, K. (2008). The two fundamental problems of the theory of knowledge (T. E. Hansen, Ed.; A. Pickel, Trans.). Routledge.
- Porta, M. (2014). Occam's Razor. In A Dictionary of Epidemiology. Oxford University Press. https://web.archive.org/web/20250926191322/https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780199976720.001.0001/acref-9780199976720-e-1336?rskey=ZOocoh&result=1519
- Ruse, M. (1982). Creation Science Is Not Science. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 7(3), 72-78. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224398200700313
- Sagan, C. (1979). Broca's brain: Reflections on the romance of science. Random House.
- Schindler, S. (2024). Predictivism and avoidance of ad hoc-ness: An empirical study. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 104, 68–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2023.11.008
- Stanovich, K. E. (2007). How to Think Straight About Psychology. Pearson Education.
- Swinburne, R. (1997). Simplicity as evidence for truth. Marquette University Press.
- Thornton, S. (2023). Karl Popper. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2023 ed.). Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2023/entries/popper
- Tressoldi, P. E. (2011). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: The case of non-local perception, a classical and Bayesian review of evidences. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, Article 117. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00117
- Wikipedia contributors. (2025). Occam's razor. In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Occam%27s_razor&oldid=1313302051
- Williams, L. V. (2021). Probability, Choice, and Reason (1st ed.). Chapman and Hall/CRC. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003083610