Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!cbmvax!snark!eric
From: eric@snark.UUCP (Eric S. Raymond)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Simplicity and truth (was: Re: Science and Aesthetics)
Message-ID: <132@snark.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 22-Aug-87 13:07:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: snark.132
Posted: Sat Aug 22 13:07:51 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Aug-87 04:06:32 EDT
References: <120@snark.UUCP> <86@thirdi.UUCP> <8707@ut-sally.UUCP> <20070@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <8727@ut-sally.UUCP>
Organization: Thyrsus Enterprises, Malvern PA 19355
Lines: 15
Summary: no formal argument for Occam's Razor

In article <20194@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, kube@cogsci.berkeley.edu (Paul Kube) writes:
>                                             Ockham's razor enjoins us to
> disbelieve the first [simpler] theory, other things being equal; and I'm
> still wondering if there's an argument for it.
> 
> --Paul kube@berkeley.edu, ...!ucbvax!kube

There is no *formal* argument for Occam's Razor. It's a heuristic, based on
experience of what kinds of theory-building practices yield the most predictive
and robust theories. The argument for it, like the argument for scientific
method itself, is simply that it works.
-- 
      Eric S. Raymond
      UUCP:  {{seismo,ihnp4,rutgers}!cbmvax,sdcrdcf!burdvax,vu-vlsi}!snark!eric
      Post:  22 South Warren Avenue, Malvern, PA 19355    Phone: (215)-296-5718