Is Occam's Razor a logical fallacy?

[they don't love you like i love you]

?

[Alcon]

No, and I'm going to guess you misunderstand it.

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem - Pluralities ought not be posited without necessity.  Or, in simple English, "of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simplest one is to be preferred."

The common bastardization is, "the simplest explanation should be assumed to be right," or -- even worse -- "the simplest explanation is true."  This is not at all what William of Ockham's writings explained.  Galilei's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems made fun of this but people haven't stopped.  Mostly because no one reads his sh**t anymore, me included.

So, anyway:  Explain to me how Ockham's original version is fallacious.  Not the common bastardized version, which we all know is. 

[John Dibble]

No. It merely says that when trying to draw conclusions, it is best to make as few assumptions as possible. In other words use data to draw conclusions, not speculation. I see nothing illogical about that line of thought.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

It depends on the semantics of words like "simple".

In short I agree with Alcon said, though I think he should keep in mind what I said the last time we discussed this.

[they don't love you like i love you]

No, and I'm going to guess you misunderstand it.

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem - Pluralities ought not be posited without necessity.  Or, in simple English, "of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simplest one is to be preferred."

The common bastardization is, "the simplest explanation should be assumed to be right," or -- even worse -- "the simplest explanation is true."  This is not at all what William of Ockham's writings explained.  Galilei's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems made fun of this but people haven't stopped.  Mostly because no one reads his sh**t anymore, me included.

So, anyway:  Explain to me how Ockham's original version is fallacious.  Not the common bastardized version, which we all know is. 

I voted no.

[A18]

It certainly isn't "a logical fallacy," and it's not logically fallacious either. How could it be? It's not an argument of any sort—it's just a postulate.

Occam's Razor is entirely arbitrary, however. (I don't mean that as a condemnation.)

[pbrower2a]

The simplest explanation consistent with the established facts is most likely to be true and must be accepted as the best explanation.

The Copernican theory of of a heliocentric system is far simpler than the Earth-centered universe of Ptolemy. Indeed, the Copernican system was accepted even when it was less precise.  Don't laugh! A Ptolemaic system can be as precise as the current one with about 75 circles of movement, some of the subtlest accounting for relativistic effects. It's just too complicated to explain. 

Don't add pointless fluff to a perfectly good theory.

[A18]

The simplest explanation consistent with the established facts is most likely to be true and must be accepted as the best explanation.

Of course, that is a statement rather than an argument. On what ground are we to say that the "simplest" explanation is most realistic?

It's an entirely arbitrary assumption.

[pbrower2a]

The simplest explanation consistent with the established facts is most likely to be true and must be accepted as the best explanation.

Of course, that is a statement rather than an argument. On what ground are we to say that the "simplest" explanation is most realistic?

It's an entirely arbitrary assumption.

Newton's laws of motion are straightforwad enough.  They are easily expressed, and adding anything to them  muddies them. Kepler's laws of planetary motion? Likewise.

For real complexity -- and doubletalk -- try astrology. It makes astrophysics and relativity look simple by contrast.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

The simplest explanation consistent with the established facts is most likely to be true and must be accepted as the best explanation.

Of course, that is a statement rather than an argument. On what ground are we to say that the "simplest" explanation is most realistic?

It's an entirely arbitrary assumption.

Newton's laws of motion are straightforwad enough.  They are easily expressed, and adding anything to them  muddies them. Kepler's laws of planetary motion? Likewise.

For real complexity -- and doubletalk -- try astrology. It makes astrophysics and relativity look simple by contrast.

... or Quantum Mechanics.

The idea that the universe "out there" must be in some way "simple" (and to a human - often culture-specific - notion of simplicity at that) is a completely a priori assumption which should not have a great deal of influence over either science or the social 'sciences' (though I admit it does not have some value in the shaping hypothesis).

[Alcon]

The simplest explanation consistent with the established facts is most likely to be true and must be accepted as the best explanation.

Of course, that is a statement rather than an argument. On what ground are we to say that the "simplest" explanation is most realistic?

It's an entirely arbitrary assumption.

The one that entails the fewest complicated constructs, but that does not make "all else" equal really.  There's probably more writing on Ockham's razor than I've read, but that's always seemed kind of limiting to me

[Gustaf]

I'm not really familiar with the argument as to why it would be?

[A18]

The simplest explanation consistent with the established facts is most likely to be true and must be accepted as the best explanation.

Of course, that is a statement rather than an argument. On what ground are we to say that the "simplest" explanation is most realistic?

It's an entirely arbitrary assumption.

The one that entails the fewest complicated constructs, but that does not make "all else" equal really.  There's probably more writing on Ockham's razor than I've read, but that's always seemed kind of limiting to me

Did you misread my post, perhaps? So far as I can tell, your post has nothing to do with mine.

[Earth]

I agree with these two posts; better than I could've said it.

On what ground are we to say that the "simplest" explanation is most realistic?

It's an entirely arbitrary assumption.

The idea that the universe "out there" must be in some way "simple" (and to a human - often culture-specific - notion of simplicity at that) is a completely a priori assumption which should not have a great deal of influence over either science or the social 'sciences' (though I admit it does not have some value in the shaping hypothesis).

[Alcon]

The simplest explanation consistent with the established facts is most likely to be true and must be accepted as the best explanation.

Of course, that is a statement rather than an argument. On what ground are we to say that the "simplest" explanation is most realistic?

It's an entirely arbitrary assumption.

The one that entails the fewest complicated constructs, but that does not make "all else" equal really.  There's probably more writing on Ockham's razor than I've read, but that's always seemed kind of limiting to me

Did you misread my post, perhaps? So far as I can tell, your post has nothing to do with mine.

It did, but forget it.  It was unnecessary

[jokerman]

I did some thinking on this today while on a run.

The value of Occam's Razor depends on one's own epistemological theory.  If scientific models or ideas are merely evaluated for their utility to society and, furthermore, their ability to be translated into various realms of thought and evolve the full body of scientific "knowledge," then Occam's Razor is very relevant.  If a complex idea can be thought of as a system of ideas, then the less complex the system is the easier it can be adjusted to different fields of application or to account for new empirical information.

It is worth noting that, for example, regardless of the relative truth in Newton's theories vs. those of Leibniz, the former, being much simpler and less convoluted than the latter, formed the basis of modern physics, and even the framework for Einstein's disproval of Newtonian physics in itself.  Even though, possibly, from a metaphysical standpoint, Leibniz was closer to Einstein than Newton, it was Newton's theories that had the mutability to progress into something more advanced.