Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site qubix.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!decvax!decwrl!sun!qubix!steven
From: steven@qubix.UUCP (Steven Maurer)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Occam's Razor - A Popular Fallacy?
Message-ID: <995@qubix.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 14-Apr-84 12:51:12 EST
Article-I.D.: qubix.995
Posted: Sat Apr 14 12:51:12 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 15-Apr-84 08:23:43 EST
References: <1032@ihuxr.UUCP>
Organization: Qubix Graphic Systems, Saratoga, CA
Lines: 45

[This Message Rated PG]


	Let me see if I can take some of the mysticm and
    misunderstanding out of this principle.

	Occam's Razor states that given two theories which
    correctly model the (scientific) evidence you now have,
    the one which assumes the least additional unknown evidence
    should be the one which is accepted.


	This is actually codified common sense, as most science
    is.   But to explain further, I give the following example:

	Suppose I leave a cat, and a canary in a cage, in the
	same room.  When I return, the cage is open, the canary
	is gone, and the cat is asleep with canary feathers on
	its mouth.

	There are at least two (perfectly scientific) theories
	which could explain this phenomina:

	    1]  Three imps, snappily dressed in tuxedos, poped into
	    the room from wherever imps pop from, opened the cage,
	    grabbed the canary, bound it and gagged it, left some
	    incriminating feathers on the mouth of the sleeping cat,
	    and popped back out again.

	    2]  The cat ate the bird.

	Now while both theories completely fit the evidence at hand,
	one of them assumes quite a bit of additional (unobserved)
	evidence.  Thus, by Occam's Razor, we should accept the other.


    Note that the concept of "simple" does not really come into
    the discussion at all, unless you recognise "simple" to mean
    "assumes the least".


    Steven Maurer