This "scientific" validity angle will be further reinforced with authoritatively related proclamations like this one, which are shouted from the blog-tops: "When faced with two competing theories, the one which is simpler is most likely to be right." In this morphology the fashion-statement reads:
At this point it will be presented as a logically, and scientifically sound concept for determining which "theory," among two competing theories must be the right one (based, remember, on applying this "scientifically and logically sound principle" to the matter at hand). The Ockham's Razor fashion-statement, when first presented, will usually be presented to bolster a flailing debating position on a web-site or in a forum discussion. This lets them feel vindicated and reinforced in their own beliefs. Ideally, a marketing concept should be something that only provides enough structure so that people will fill in the details by mentally painting their own ideas and understanding onto it. a Rorschach test for the mind if you will. Generally a marketing concept will be amorphous and pastel. In the above example, where we started with 128 possible parts, a maximum of seven iterations will be required to divide it down to a single part.Įlectronics engineers and programmers will recognize this as "successive approximation." It is used to great effect in many applications, for example, converting analog signals into digital signals. Put back the original parts, and go back to step 1.Otherwise the second half is the new bad group. If the problem is solved, the first half of the "bad group" contains the problem part, and becomes the new bad group. Swap out the first half of the bad group, and leave the second half in the car.The "bad group," meaning the group that contains the problem-part. Start by dividing the "bad group" of parts in half.That is, all the parts you suspect it might be. We can employ William's advice to great effect in this situation:Īt the start of this exercise, your "bad group" will contain all 128 possibilities. What if you have, say, 128 things you suspect it could be? Just like before, you aren't sure which one it is. The above explanation was about as simple as you can get it (well, almost). It's not that difficult really, but it has been completely scrummed, by the promotion and marketing types. Read the quotes and draw your own conclusion. If you want to learn which one of these three suspected causes is the actual cause of the specific symptoms (the observed phenomena), you must change each of the three suspected parts out ONE AT A TIME, and try the car after each one.Depending on your goal, this may be fine. If you change all three parts at once (they are relatively inexpensive parts) you will never know which of the three components was actually responsible for the experimentally observed phenomenon (running badly, and making a distinct noise).You're not a "car guy," but you do have an interest, and you suspect it could be one of three possible things:Īre the quotes listed above starting to make sense to you yet? It is making a funny, but distinct noise, and it is running poorly in a very distinct way. Your car is displaying a very specific set of symptoms. "It is vain to do with more what can be done with less."ĭisputed, but, perhaps ironically, without evidence: "Entities must not be unnecessarily multiplied." (but see resources) (or: "Plurality should not be posited without necessity.")
"Plurality should not be assumed without necessity."
One possible theory as to why this appeal to a purely aesthetic "rule" may be so widely accepted without question is discussed below in the section titled: "Look At It This Way." William's original advice (see some quotes below) was based on sound, logical reasoning, while the commonly promoted mis-characterization of his advice is little more than a fashion statement. His French peers misspelled the name of his town: Occam, and, like the town of Ockham, that misspelling continues to persist to this day. William of Ockham (also: " Sir William of Occam") - A 14th century philosopher who is best known for what has come to be known as "ockham's razor" (or "occam's razor"), which is almost always mis-characterized in common usage.