Part Three of the Verbose Occam's Razor Debate

"Yes Baron, but consider the following from the Ward Manager.

{Cigar Puff}

Occam's Razor encourages the playing of odds rather than discovering the truth. It's fine to assume that the simpler hypothesis is more probable than the more complex one. But that doesn't mean that the more complex chain of events haven't, in fact, taken place.

OR suggests that of two equally valid explanations, the simpler explanation should be chosen. The mistake here is in the use of the word 'valid.' In Logic, 'validity' is by definition the formulation of jointly-asserted premises, such that their logical conclusion is undeniable, barring an internal contradiction.

OR is intended to point in the direction of the more likely hypothesis, but the hypothesis still needs to be proven. And if the more simple hypothesis cannot be proven to be the accurate one, then the less likely one(s) will need to be evaluated in order to establish the truth.

"If two theories are equally accurate and neither appears more probable than the other, the simple one is to be preferred over the complicated one, because simplicity is practical."

Or, to paraphrase. "If two explanations are equally likely and equally accurate, the simpler explanation is preferred." The problem arises with the basic premise. The more complex an occurrence, the less likely it is to occur due to the number of possible variables which may be affected. This is an inherent trait, which means that OR is inherently biased toward simplicity of hypothesis, not accuracy.

I don't think OR was ever intended to dismiss any hypothesis; merely to point toward the most likely candidate. To apply it in the broad sense of a test for validity is overreaching.

{Cigar Puff}"