Eli5 Occam’s Razor
In: Other
Occam’s Razor in its basic form is the idea that if you have two competing theories that make the exact same prediction, the simpler one is the better one, because it’s easier to test and utilize.
It’s been expanded a lot in modern thought to also include problem solving: we often say that the simplest explanation is more likely to be correct than a more complex one. People often use it incorrectly and say that the simplest explanation is *usually* true, but this isn’t always the case. It’s better to say that the simplest explanation is a better starting point, unless more evidence comes along.
If we wanted to use a simple example, let’s say that I go to the restroom and when I come back to my desk, and the muffin that I left on the desk is now gone, while my dog is sitting in the corner of the room looking upset. A simple explanation would be that my dog ate my muffin and is now worried that he’ll get in trouble (and he will). A more complicated explanation might be that a bird flew in through a window and stole my muffin, upsetting my dog. Or that a burglar broke in and stole my muffin and nothing else, scaring my dog. Or even that my muffin spontaneously combusted, leaving no evidence that it ever existed. Occam’s razor tells me that before I start worrying about open windows or broken locks, I should just sniff my dog’s breath to see if it smells like blueberries or see if there’s crumbs on his face, because that would be a very simple explanation. If it doesn’t fit, then I might have to start looking for other solutions (checking for open windows, making sure my door is locked, re-evaluating my knowledge of physics…), but I shouldn’t start with those more complicated scenarios and ignore the simple one. They all require more assumptions to make sense, so we should start wherever the fewest assumptions should be made. My dog theory only requires one assumption – dogs like food. Let’s start there.
Latest Answers