Occam's Razor

[Scott Northrup]

No: HPFGUIDX 51823


> 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.

Well, first thing, let me state the actual definition of Occam's Razor.

"A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be
multiplied needlessly [Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate]. This
rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing
theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should
first be attempted in terms of what is already known" (from Dictionary.com)

Basically, to say that common sense always holds out, or  the simplest
answer is the right one is an extreme dumbing down of the actual rule--
something I KNOW I've been guilty in the past, but this post got me thinking
about Occam's razor (which, oddly enough, I didn't hear about in any sort of
Scholastic Capacity until my first Greek History class in college).

Occam's Razor is a TOOL, not a theorem.  It is a device to help point us
towards the right answer.  Einstein did not *violate* Occam's Razor.

Violating Occam's Razor goes like this: "These guys are all crackpots and
their explanations suck!  I'm going to invent a needlessly complex
solution!"

However, Einstein saw that the explanations that had already been thrown out
there, the "simpler" ones, did not explain certain things, so he attempted
to come up with his own theory that did.  That holds with Occam's Razor.

The Last Tuesday guy is a perfect example of being in violation of Occam's
Razor; he came up with some needlessly complex theory while ignoring all of
the evidence for the simpler one, which already explained just about
everything it needed to.

Occam's Razor is a tool for deduction and logic; it's not a theorem.  It can
be applied anywhere (So don't say, "you can't apply Occam's Razor to
fiction!" because that's really a fallacy).  However, it is only a tool; not
a theorem.

Now, mind you, I find that I tend to ignore MD theory in general.  It sounds
good, but from my past experiences with series of fantasy literature,
readers can come up with fantastic, believable theories, which are actually
supported by evidence.  However, they turn out to be totally wrong, simply
because the author obviously had something in mind that was totally
different.  This is kind of a general reason why I don't really hold with
MD.  You guys have come up with a great theory, that does explain things
that some other, simpler theories cannot explain, and it is based on (your
interpretations of) canon.  So in essence, it's not violating Occam's Razor.

I can also apply Occam's Razor to the whole "How many Students?" problem.
JKR has said there are 'about 1000 students.'  However, this number isn't
really supported by the rest of the book.  Like Steve said, she's under no
obligations to make the numbers add up (though it would be nice).  However,
that aside, there are several more complicated ways to determine the number
of students in the school-- Occam's Razor is not being violated, per se.
There are problems that aren't explained by the figure 1000; all of our
theories to explain it are essentially attempting to explain the problems
raised by the books.  Admittedly, this is kind of a weird situation-- let me
tell you a story-- fictional, of course.

    God said to Einstein, "Albert, I will tell you the unbreakable laws of
Time, Space and the Universe," and God did tell Einstein the secrets of the
Universe.
    Then Einstein said unto God, "Lord, Your unbreakable laws of Time, Space
and the Universe don't explain anything!  They're wrong!"  And Einstein went
down into the city of Bern in Switzerland, became a Patent Clerk, and proved
that God was wrong.
    Einstein called out to God "Told You so!".

Er, anyway, sorry, I have a lot of free time this morning.  Anyway, in the
above example, God has 3 choices: He can either A) admit His unbreakable
laws were wrong, and concede to Einstein,  B) Rework the Universe so His
unbreakable Laws would be true, and Einstein's theories would be wrong, C)
Not say a word and let Einstein stew in his own juices.

Now, at this point, the analogy to the 'Number of Students' issue should be
obvious.  JKR can either say that she miscalculated, come up with a
reasoning for her number (whether it be additional campuses, time turners
for teachers, or that Harry's class is really small because Voldemort went
around killing wizard children of that age group, or some original idea), or
she can let us all debate about it until the end of time.  Note that I don't
hold with Steve's line of reasoning that 1000 students means "between 400
and 700" students.  Frankly, if it was as low 400, she would have said 500,
not 1000.  Frankly, I do agree that you can stretch that 1000, but I'm more
inclined to keep it between 750 and 1250 students (and even that variance is
more than I want to concede).

Er, so anyway, the moral of the story is: you can apply Occam's Razor to
just about anything in reality, and going around citing Occam's Razor to
prove that theories must be wrong is probably not a great idea.

-Scott

(As an aside, technically the whole theory of evolution sort of parallels my
story, and the 'Number of Houses' problem.  God said "This is how you came
to be," and Darwin and later evolutionary biologists said, "wrong!".
WRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA)