Blind Faith Parsimony: Occam's Razor as Fundamental, Defining and Emancipating Scientific Standard

Occam’s Razor (also known as principle of parsimony) is regularly dismissed as an obsolete vestige no longer worthy of its longstanding regard as fundamental to scientific inquiry. Concurrently, the science demarcation problem is fast becoming a full-fledged academic crisis. This paper posits that the latter reality stems from the former. Said principle’s core commitment is distilled as Blind Faith Parsimony: the most scientific hypothesis is whichever yields the fullest account of corresponding data while entailing least ad hoc-ness (i.e., gratuitous conjecture). A threefold thesis is then built upon this straightforward distillation. Primary thesis: Occam’s Razor remains of fundamental scientific importance. Secondary thesis: Said distillation cuts to the core of what optimally demarcates and defines science. Tertiary thesis: It thereby frees science to engage all questions where reason and evidence apply (including many claimed by frameworks like non-overlapping magisteria to fall outside the scientific purview). Three main supporting arguments are utilized. Argument A highlights the too-often-overlooked agility with which Occam’s Razor dovetails with available corresponding data—no matter how complex. Argument B shows that science requires falsifiability, which requires parsimony. Whereas Argument C addresses the enormous burden of proof reasonable corresponding dismissals must meet.