… is a scientific method, helping to choose amongst competing hypotheses the one making the fewest new assumptions when they are equal in all other respects. This does not make it logically undeniable but the most plausible and preferred due to its simplicity.
Often, this principle is simply referred to in the short term razor but actually meaning Occam’s razor… English favour abbreviations.
Allow me to present some background information.
Before the start of the 20th century, scientists generally believed that nature itself was simple, and the simpler a suggested explanation for an occurrence in nature was, the more likely it was thought to be true. This concept is the essence of the aesthetic content simplicity carries for human sensory perception, and the validation of this connection was often based on theology.
Thomas of Aquinas postulated the following argument in the 13th century:
“If a thing can be done adequately by means of one, it is superfluous to do it by means of several; for we observe, nature does not employ two instruments if one suffices.”
Wilhelm of Ockham, an English Franciscan friar (1287–1347) is remembered as an influential nominalist (see appendix) but his widespread fame as a great logician originated mainly from the rule which is believed to be formulated by him and thus, is known as Ockham’s razor or Occam’s razor.
I am sure you noticed the different ways of spelling of Wilhelm’s surname when Ockham was turned into Occam. The English-speaking scientific world is blatantly ignorant about the mistake.
Previous to the inclusion of English as a language of science, the written and often spoken language amongst scholars of Europe was Latin and secondly, German. Then, Occam’s razor was Ockhams Messer (German), literally translated Ockham’s knife.
The first part of Ockham’s razor most often found in his work is:
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
[Plurality must never be posited without necessity.]
And a variation of the above:
Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora
[It is futile to do with more things which can be done with fewer.]
Both expressions are similar to Thomas of Aquinas’ postulate. For Ockham, the only fundamental force is the existence of God; everything else, the whole of creation, is radically accidental through and through.
The second essential condition of Ockham’s razor:
[with other things the same, or all other things being equal or held constant.]
This phrase has been added later to the simplified and generalised expression of Ockham’s original statement.
Today, Ockham’s razor sound like this:
“Simpler explanations are,
other things being equal,
than more complex ones.”
You may wonder why the word Messer or knife or razor has been used to describe Ockham’s rule. Perhaps, by applying this rule, one is offered a systematic approach to either shave away unnecessary assumptions in a hypothesis helping to make the statement simpler.
It could also be seen as cutting or trimming two similar theories by reducing them to more straightforward and thus more essential versions, which previously only may have sounded similar.
Nominalism is a metaphysical view in philosophy according to which general or abstract terms and predicates exist. The Latin word nomino means name. (In Nomine Padre…)
Let me explain: In the real world, the name of an object and its form and appearance are always related and their connection essential… an aeroplane (something flat in the air), a rolling pin (a pin suitable for being rolled) or a house (something to house something in), for example.
or…. A name may relate to a physical and non‑physical object, but if the name refers only to an abstract object, this name does not exist. The existence of a name requires the connection with reality.
In the real world universal or abstract objects, which are sometimes thought to correspond to realistic terms, do not exist. An abstract object can be one which has been unknown, so far. Here is an example: Electricity existed before it was discovered. It had to exist because otherwise, it could not have been discovered. Did it have a name before its discovery? Nominalism says, yes.
The existence of something does not depend on it having been discovered by human beings. There are more of us who don’t know what scientists know.
In the 13th century, there was a clear connection between metaphysics and reality. Slowly, scientists return to this… belief?
Collected and written, 8 June 2011