This post is highly relevant to the discussions already on this site, and my choice of it is largely influenced by the discussion on Pyrrho and skepticism. However, I feel that it is so fundamentally vital to almost any philosophical discussion and so important as a concept to understand my views as well as many others, that it deserves a section in itself. The subject I speak of is Occam's Razor.
True to its incisively imposing moniker, the Razor is a formidable force in any argument; when wielded correctly, it is often enough to sever an opponents point of view completely, or at the very least shave (all right, enough razor puns) some excess baggage off a standing discussion. My explanation will be perhaps mired in some mathematical verbiage, but I guarantee that understanding this fairly easy concept will greatly improve anyone's argumentative repertoire. So what exactly is this elusive razor?
The Razor itself is a rather simple logical statement first proposed by William of Occam, a medieval philosopher. It states that "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything", or alternatively, "Given any number of possible explanations, the one that should be accepted is the one requiring the fewest assumptions", or, for the logically challenged, "The simplest solution is always the best."
So, what exactly is the effect of this relatively self-evident idea? Firstly, it is the basis of almost all scientific and mathematical modeling. If, for example, one takes two measurements in an experiment and places them on a coordinate grid as two points, and one wants to make a guess as to the relationship of the variables, there are an infinite number of curves one could draw that go through both points. Without the Razor, each of these would be equally valid, and the scientist could not even begin to decide how to start his analysis. By the Razor, however, the simplest solution is the one the scientist should accept, namely a straight line through the two points. The reason this works is because even though it is probably not exact, this model would have the highest chance of coming the closest to the actual curve, were more data to be taken, a much higher chance than, for example, a giant zigzag that goes through both points. Of course, this brings out a failing in the Razor, namely that it does not necessarily prove anything. Quite possibly, the relationship between the data is not a straight line. Regardless, the Razor provides a starting point, and has many even more practical applications in the world of argument.
Most philosophical and, indeed, any, arguments are built on many assumptions, and I see Occam's Razor as the ultimate tiebreaker. Sometimes two arguments will follow logically from their respective assumptions and have not been disproved by the opponent, yet reach a different conclusion. How does one decide which should be accepted? With the Razor, the choice is simple. It can also be expanded to include simplicity beyond a count of assumptions. If two people hear music coming from behind a closed door, and one concludes that there must be a cd player, while the other concludes that there must be an entire philharmonic orchestra inside, neither side can be completely disproved, but a Razor-like logic chooses the one more likely to be true. My favorite uses of the Razor are in arguments against religion and morality, which use a great number of assumptions to explain their own inconsistencies, that can be explained infinitely easier without assuming them. The other useful thing Occam's Razor allows us to do is to set aside certain irritating propositions that inevitably pop up when we would really rather ignore them for the time being, such as "what if we're all just dreams of a character in a dream of a dog?" In cases like this, it is easier to assume that we exist than it is to make the numerous assumptions that allow the other claim to work. When arguments get out of hand, everyone piling on statement after statement, argument after argument, belief after belief, it's time to take out the Razor and do some major shaving.
Until next time, keep those metaphorical beards trimmed!
4.24.2005
occam's razor
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
What movie was that on??Bradsblog
brad, that was on 1997's "contact," the one with jodie foster.
i can see limited uses for this in discussions, however it can be grossly misused and itself divert from truth.
largely because what is simple is a matter of perception, except in extreme cases.
but so many things aren't extreme.
in this essay, we see an assertion that the razor shouldn't be used to prove anything.
however, a few sentences later the statement is made "How does one decide which should be accepted? With the Razor, the choice is simple."
that in itself is a misuse, because it is an effort to prove something. it does that because the argument has been limited to two choices.
sometimes that is necessary, but, to me, the razor is a simplistic tool designed to make people comfortable with what they don't understand.
nice, substantive site you guys have here. :)
e+
To respond to Eric's post:
It is true that Occam's Razor doesn't prove anything, but the point of its use is that there are many situations where one either cannot prove something or one does not need to prove something. Perhaps the vast majority of philosophical arguments are simply an attempt to explain or provide a model for what we observe. In this way philosophy resembles a scientific discipline. What the Razor DOES do is provide a method for an observer who has listened to two different arguments explaining a situation to choose one to accept. If the choice eventually proves to be wrong, as well it may with further evidence, the observer can modify his stance accordingly. A great deal of arguments end up at a standstill, with two theories that both explain the issue intended. It is in situations like this where one applies the Razor. It is also true, as you say, that what is "simpler" is sometimes subjective. In a scientific or mathematical sense, such as the graph approximation example, simple is easy to determine. In discussional circumstances, this may be very difficult. The way I deal with this is that I simply assume nothing that is not widely supported. When a situation requiring Occam's Razor comes along, if I can explain a situation using those very basic assumptions, it easily takes precedence over any other explanation that requires more. If I cannot explain it without assuming as much as any other argument, or without creating a very hazy line between what is "simpler", I cannot really use the Razor to support my point, but I can subjectively decide which I feel is simpler, and use that for my personal analyses later. The uses of the Razor are admittedly somewhat limited, and as I said, it cant be used to prove anything. But contrary to your proposed contradiction, determining which model or theory should be accepting is not incompatible with improvability. The Razor is more than "a simplistic tool used to make people comfortable with what they dont understand." It is a simple tool, yes, but it is a very logical device that is used, not to make us "comfortable", but to keep us from having to say "I have no idea" for all the things (Perhaps everything, in fact) that we cannot prove with 100% certainty.
I would also like to add, that if one keeps the limitations of the Razor in mind, it should not be able to be abused, unless one calls a logical assessment "abuse". Perhaps the part I most regret in my original post is inferring that the Razor can help one "win" a discussion. It would be better to say that the Razor cannot be used to win an argument, as it doesnt prove the point. However, what the Razor does in an argument is it says: all right, the argument hasn't been fully settled, but if someone needed to choose one of these arguments to apply to a life-or-death situation, this is the one to pick.
I am not a philosopher, so this is not my default lingo. However, I am a PhD in New Testament studies (careful, don't presume a Christian too quickly). The Razor comes up in our discussions often when trying to determine historical liklihood of certain aspects of early Christianity in the first century. Here is my question: Doesn't the razor ultimately bow to the ideologies and assumptions of the one who is using it? In other words, while it may be helpful, it is only helpful to a very limited extent since it is always used under the control of the user's presuppositions. Again I am not an expert on the razor, but this is just one problem I have seen with it. I like your bolg; thanks.
Kyle, what you say is true. Often individual assumptions can affect the use of the Razor. Because of this, it can be easily misused. The key is to apply it objectively and only in situations where ones predispositions dont get in the way. This is far easier in scientific circumstances, but doesnt render the Razor wholly unusable in other ones.
Post a Comment