Occam's Razor

[deadstop2001 <deadstop@wombatzone.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 51808

At 11:39 AM 2/7/2003 +0000, Grey Wolf wrote:


>The short answer is: no. At that point, Occam's Razor is normally
>invoked, but as I said, Occam's Razor doesn't work in books - and
>neither it does in Science, when you get right down to it. 


Does Occam's Razor actually refer to reality, though?  (Actual or 
fictional reality, in this case.)  Or does it refer simply to the 
limits of potential argument, much like the line between canon 
backing and speculation that is often walked on this list?

It's true that, if anyone ever believed that the simplest explanation 
really *is* the truth, that was dispelled definitively by findings 
like Einstein's.  And JKR has certainly shown us by now that such a 
principle will not work for the Potterverse, either.

However, I think what Occam was pointing out (much as people have 
recently argued on the list about some theories that seem to them to 
take too many liberties with canon) is that the simplest explanation 
*which fits all the facts* is the only one a claimant has warrant to 
expect other people to believe, based on his arguments.  All other 
explanations require assumptions that are not in evidence, so while 
they *could* be true, there is no reason except for personal 
preference to accept them over the simplest explanation.  (You pretty 
much say this later about theories, actually.)

As a commonly given example in philosophy-type settings, it is 
entirely possible that the world could have been created last 
Tuesday, exactly as it was, with all its history and everyone's 
memories simply manufactured to fit that situation.  It is completely 
impossible to disprove this, since it is set up to agree with every 
observed piece of evidence we have.  In scientific terms, it is 
unfalsifiable, and therefore of little scientific interest.  The 
person who claims that the world was created last Tuesday cannot 
expect anyone *else* to buy into this on the strength of his 
arguments, however, for the same reason the theory cannot be 
falsified: it fits all (and *only*) the same evidence that is 
explained by much simpler theories, that require fewer unprovable 
assumptions on the part of the believer.  So, per Occam, there is no 
reason (unless one just likes the idea) to choose the more 
complicated explanation.  It may still be *true*, for all we know, 
but a persuasive argument has not been presented to support it.

Note that Einstein actually did not violate Occam's Razor in the same 
way as the "created last Tuesday" guy.  His explanation for observed 
phenomena was a lot weirder than common sense ever expected, true, 
but he was actually able to make predictions and propose tests to 
show evidence that supported his explanation and *not* the simpler 
one that had previously been assumed.  Thus his findings overturned 
the earlier ones, and *became* the simplest explanation that really 
does fit *all* the facts.

Now, which of these two examples do speculative theories on HPFGU 
most resemble?  Most likely there are some of each.  The recent 
battle over Magic Dishwasher seems to have arisen when the critics 
assumed MD was claiming to be of the "Einstein" type (offering 
subtle, yet observable evidence that supports its claims over those 
of less complex explanations) and the MDDT responded with insistence 
that the theory is actually of the "created last Tuesday" type -- 
presently unfalsifiable (though I am aware you state that it could 
easily be refuted by future canon) because it relies on differing 
interpretations of the same evidence.  Thus, MDDT felt it was their 
personal preferences being attacked, rather than any evidence 
distinguishing their theory from others.

Since until June all theories have the same pool of incomplete canon 
evidence on which to draw, battles over interpretation are far more 
likely than ones that can be settled by actual points of canon.  If 
we are to continue to argue/discuss these differing interpretations, 
it is probably more profitable to use a historical/legal model of 
theory clash rather than a strictly scientific one.  Since we can't 
actually probe the facts of the Potterverse until Jo gives us a new 
book, and then only to the extent she sheds light on things we've 
been wondering about, we're more in the position of people trying to 
argue a court case or to support a particular interpretation of 
historical events.  Of course, it is still possible to argue these 
things, on the basis of relative plausibility (often still invoking 
some form of Occam).  And that seems to be what HPFGUers do.  So I'm 
not sure the "it's just our interpretation, and you shouldn't attack 
it" defense really counts, especially for a theory as strongly put 
forth and defended as MD.  People are always saying "I'm not sure I 
buy into Theory X, but" or "I think I've become a convert to Theory 
Y," about all the theories bandied about here (even some of the 
stranger Hedgehogs), so why not the biggest, baddest reinterpretation 
of them all?  It may ultimately all come down to interpretation and 
personal preference, but MD above all theories presented here has a 
well-worked-out chain of evidence.  It may not be 
unimpeachable "gravity bends light"-type evidence as in Einstein's 
case, but I seem to recall quite a number of "And how *else* do you 
explain..." flourishes in the original presentation and subsequent 
defenses.  Which would seem to invite people to respond "Well, I 
think *this* explains things just as well without requiring as many 
assumptions," to which the MDDT is naturally expected to reply "Ah, 
but your explanation doesn't cover *this*" and so on until the end of 
time (or at least the release of Book 5).

Well, those are the thoughts of an infrequent poster who finds MD 
highly intriguing and entertaining, but isn't ready to join the 
Defense Team just yet ... but who *adores* Occam's Razor, properly 
understood.  Later.


Stacy Forsythe
deadstop at wombatzone.com


P.S., to whoever was invoking Heisenberg: Are you sure you've got the 
right guy?  As far as I know, the Uncertainty Principle implies only 
to attempts to determine simultaneously the position and momentum of 
a particle, not to any more general examples of uncertainty.  You may 
be thinking of Godel instead, who proved that no mathematical system 
can be both complete and consistent, and therefore (some say) poked 
holes in any attempt to explain *everything* without contradiction.