Talk:Occam's razor: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:08, 3 January 2003

Latest revision as of 18:02, 14 May 2025

(970 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Talkheader}}

I changed the storm/tree argument simply because the simplest explanation following the storm is NOT lightning, but a wind, and most trees felled in storms are knocked over by wind, NOT lightning.

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=

--[[user:jaknouse]]

{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=High|science=yes|logic=yes|medieval=yes}}

{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=Mid}}

}}

{{Online source|year=2004

|section=April 2004 (28 articles)

|title=Cities should use 'Razor'

|org=L.A. Daily News

|date=April 12, 2004

|url=http://www.presstelegram.com/Stories/0,1413,204~21479~2079406,00.html}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

| algo=old(365d)

| archive=Talk:Occam's razor/Archive %(counter)d

| counter=6

| maxarchivesize=75K

| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}

| minthreadsleft=5

| minthreadstoarchive=2

}}

== Nomenclature ==

----

I have always seen it spelled Ockham's Razor locally, and Occams Razor online.

Occam's Razor is arguably most profound in the context of the philosophy of science. If it is possible, then, it would be nice to collect actual historical instances of scientists trying to decide one way or another on a matter through something like Occam's razor. I think that, in practice, good examples would be hard to find; sets of theories where each is equivalent to all the others except for one being "simplest" are, I assume, hard to find.

Given it is credited to Ockham, why is the nomenclature in this article Occam?

Could there be a section added for why this variation exists?

The obvious example that pops to mind is the heliocentric theory of the solar system vs the Earth-centric system. However, I don't currently know enough about all the players to do anything like an accurate job of this.

I looked into it a bit, Stanford for example use Ockham, but Occam is more prevalent.

If this were the only example that could be furnished, however, that would suggest that Occam's Razor is not really a factor in guiding science.

I assume it has to do with Latin/English translation, but I cannot find any concrete sources to add this to the article. [[User:Emmertex|Emmertex]] ([[User talk:Emmertex|talk]]) 10:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

:I think that this arises from a combination of several factors. Although Latin has a letter 'K', the letter 'C' is more often used for the same sound and therefore his Latin name has usually been Occam. And Occam derives from the village now known as Ockham, but the spelling of that place would itself have been variable in centuries past, as with many other places. In the Domesday Book of the late 11th century, the village was called 'Bocheham' and only later became 'Ockham'. The aim shouldn't be to decide which is 'right' but what is the most common usage now, and if 'Occam's razor' is that, the article should reflect it. [[User:Sbishop|Sbishop]] ([[User talk:Sbishop|talk]]) 11:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

--[[user:Ryguasu|Ryguasu]]

== Length ==

----

This article is far longer than is necessary for an adequate explanation of the topic. It fails to be a model of the very principle it describes. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:D wigglesworth|D wigglesworth]] ([[User talk:D wigglesworth#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/D wigglesworth|contribs]]) 19:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Having a PhD in statistics, I couldn't begin to tell you what the "maximum likelihood principle" is, although all statisticians know the method of [[maximum likelihood]]. There is no article on "maximum likelihood principle", but only a redirect to "maximum likelihood". I am aware of various papers in scholarly journals deriving versions of Occam's razor from probability theory and applying it in statistical inference, and also of various criteria for penalizing complexity in statistical inference, but I would if someone could explain what "maximum likelihood principle" has to do with Occam's razor? -- Mike Hardy

== Newtons flaming laser sword ==

:I would guess that it was a link from someone who doesn't understand statistics as well as you do. Would you be able to clean up that section so that it accurately reflects the link (if any) between Ockham's Razor and statistics? --[[User:Dante Alighieri|Dante Alighieri]] 22:57 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)

----

I'm going to move this article to Ockham's Razor. That seems more appropriate given the man's name... --[[User:Dante Alighieri|Dante Alighieri]] 00:31 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)

In the “see also” section “Newtons flaming laser sword” is described as an Australian scientist and philosopher. As this implies that there is an Australian scientist named “Newtons flaming laser sword,” I propose it is replaced with the brief description of the philosophical razor like the other links in that section. [[User:ThatWolfDog|ThatWolfDog]] ([[User talk:ThatWolfDog|talk]]) 20:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

:It's better known as ''Occam's Razor''. Just do a redirect from the alternate. --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]]

:Sure. [[User:Danbloch|Dan Bloch]] ([[User talk:Danbloch|talk]]) 18:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

:But if [[Occam's Razor]] redirects to [[Ockham's Razor]], what's the harm? --[[User:Dante Alighieri|Dante Alighieri]] 00:36 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)

== Proposed summary for technical prose ==

::Keep in mind the Principle of Least Astonishment, which itself is akin to Occam's razor. Anyway, I made the opposite redirect: here, click on [[Ockham's Razor]] and see :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]]

I've been using Google's Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental [[large language model]] to create summaries for the most popular articles with {{tl|Technical}} templates. This article, Occam's razor, has such a template in the "[[Occam's razor#Mathematical arguments against Occam's razor|Mathematical arguments against Occam's razor]]" section. Here is the paragraph summary at grade 5 reading level which Gemini 2.5 Pro suggested for that section:

:I wouldn't say it's better known as Occam's razor. Occam's Razor seems to programmers to be the right way, but to medievalists it's Ockham's Razor. And Ockham was his name and the place where he came from. So... --[[User:Nferrier]]

:Some math rules, like the "No Free Lunch" theorem, show that Occam's razor (picking the simplest idea) isn't always the best way to figure things out. Imagine one method uses Occam's razor, and another method does the exact opposite. The math shows that the opposite method can work just as well as Occam's razor in many cases. This means picking the simplest idea isn't guaranteed to be right, because it depends on guesses about how the world works, and those guesses might be wrong.

::Neither his name nor the place where he came from have anything to do with it. We're talking about the article title, which is important for how readers will find the article. Think about Google and how it indexes things.

While I have read and may have made some modifications to that summary, I am not going to add it to the section because I want other editors to review, revise if appropriate, and add it instead. This is an experiment with a few dozen articles initially to see how these suggestions are received, and after a week or two, I will decide how to proceed. Thank you for your consideration. [[User:Cramulator|Cramulator]] ([[User talk:Cramulator|talk]]) 12:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::Remember, we're not trying to enforce a particular style on readers. We're just trying to help them get accurate info, quickly. Note that I've revised the article so that both variants are given in the first sentence. --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]]

:It's an interesting idea, but I don't think it works, at least not here. I actually like the last sentence, but I have doubts about the rest.

:::Sure. But Occam's razor is wrong because, although most programmers use it, most people talking about Ockham are not programmers but medievalist scholars. They talk about Ockham's razor, not Occam's razor.

:First, it would take human editing to make this worthwhile. This paragraph as it stands would be out of place either before or after the existing text, and would have to be edited to make it flow smoothly. Also the wording is non-encyclopedic, e.g., "some math rules", "isn't always the best way to figure things out", as well as vague. (What does "opposite method" mean here?)

:And that leads to the bigger problem. It would take a ___domain expert to say whether this is an accurate summary or not. I'm not a ___domain expert, and can't tell if it is. I think readers are better served by leaving the <nowiki>{{technical}}</nowiki> template as advice to skip over this section. (Full disclosure: I'm the one who added the <nowiki>{{technical}}</nowiki> template.) [[User:Danbloch|Dan Bloch]] ([[User talk:Danbloch|talk]]) 16:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I am retracting this and the other LLM-generated suggestions due to clear negative consensus [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)&oldid=1283927858#I_boldly_put_LLM-generated_summary_suggestions_on_the_talk_pages_of_the_68_most_popular_articles_with_Technical_templates at the Village Pump]. I will be posting a thorough postmortem report in mid-April to the [[User:Cramulator/Summaries_source_code|source code release page]]. Thanks to all who commented on the suggestions both negatively and positively, and especially to those editors who have manually addressed the overly technical cleanup issue on six, so far, of the 68 articles where suggestions were posted. [[User:Cramulator|Cramulator]] ([[User talk:Cramulator|talk]]) 22:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::But I didn't start this and have no intention of worrying about what the article is called (I don't imagine there are many medieval scholars examining articles about William of Ockham and his razor here and if there are then they can change it). -- [[User:Nferrier]]

::::Allright, that's it!! I'm writing a bot that will go and change all instances of Occam to Ockham all over the entire WORLD!! HAHAHAHA!!! All will perish in flames!!!! Or... maybe not. --[[User:Dante Alighieri|Dante Alighieri]] 00:55 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)

Well, Ed, are you going to change all the Ockham's to Occam's? Why do I forsee this ending up in Edit Wars? ;) --[[User:Dante Alighieri|Dante Alighieri]] 00:43 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)

No silly. Occam's Razor is called Occam's Razor. This is the title that most people will be searching for and linking to since this is the majority spelling. Just search Google. The fact that this spelling isn't the same as the William's last name is a historical curiosity and nothing else. --Dan

:I hate to continue this thread but... what you're doing is perpetuating the computer related bias of the net. Because Google returns a lot of results for "Occam" does not mean that's the majority spelling, just that it's the majority spelling on the net. It is the majority spelling on the net because of programmers and other scientists. There aren't a whole lot of wired medievalists. Not sure why not. -- [[User:Nferrier]]

::And our audience is who? Yikes! Netcitizens. --Dan

:::And we are supposed to cater to an audience why? So much for credibility... --[[User:Dante Alighieri|Dante Alighieri]] 01:21 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)

::::? What are we doing this for if there is no audience? Choosing what most English speakers use is the most useful thing to do since it exposes us to the widest possible audience. This is also a naming convention. --Dan

:Entitling an article a certain way does not perpetuate bias. It's purely a matter of serving the public. Please note that the first 3 words of the first sentence in the article clearly show that Occam's and Ockham's are both used. Would you like to add a usage note to the article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]]

I strongly support the Ockham spelling. This is the one used by most encyclopedias, as it is clearly the correct one (see http://www.seeatown.com/search/ for a quick meta-search). Occam is the latinized version and there's really no good reason to use it. Most importantly, spelling throughout the article should be consistent, which it currently is not. --[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]]

:The only reason to use ''Occam's Razor'' as the article title would be if it were more easily found by our readers. Personally, I think this is not a very important issue. I'm more concerned with philosophical issues raised by the article. For example, if a man speaks in a forest and there is no woman around to hear what he says, is he still wrong? (see [[feminism]]) --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]]

:I'm with Eloquence here. If Wikipedia wants to be a serious encyclopedia then we should put it under the name that the involved experts and scientists think it should have. For linking things under alternative or popular names we have redirects, and Google is also not much of a problem as long as the word "Occam" appears somewhere on the page. -- [[User:Jan Hidders|Jan Hidders]] 17:46 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ed here. The most useful thing for us to do for our readers and contributors is to use what they are most likely to naturally search for or link to. Google isn't perfect but it does show that there are 50% more webpages that use the "Occam" spelling vs the older "Ockham" spelling. And part of what we are doing here is to make our encyclopedia ''more'' accessible to the general public than regular encyclopedias have been (and continue to be). There is also the 'use common names of persons and things' naming convention that should be followed. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]]

: We do not lose accessibility by redirecting to Ockham's Razor. The main reason not to do so in cases of native spellings vs. anglicized ones is the potential for confusion: If I search for Munich, I don't expect ''München'', so that may result in confusion. Many of the "Occam" pages you will find over Google look like the current article: They call it "Occam's Razor" but also refer to William of O'''ckh'''am. This is, in my opinion, a case where the average reader would prefer consistency and some background information on the different variants of the name. The current variant is the confusing one.

: In any case, we need to come to a resolution here. Should we vote? Currently I'm counting four people supporting a move and three against. --[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] 19:19 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)

::Not when one form is clearly more widely used than another. "Occam's Razor" -"Ockham's Razor" still yields 27,300 results vs "Ockham's Razor" -"Occam's Razor" 19,100. So the naming convention has us use "Occam". --[[User:Maveric149|mav]]

:::Mav is right, the naming convention dictates Occam, however unscholarly and confusing it is. But as far as I can tell the arguments for this convention are simply spurious. If we move the page then (1) ease of linking does not change because of redirects, (2) you will still find the page with Wikipedia's own search engine if you search on "Occam razor" (just like you find it now with "Ockham razor") and (3) Google will still rate the page just as high and show it in the top of the search results if you look for "occam razor". So I don't see why we should compromise here the quality of Wikipedia as a work of reference. However, I don't have the time to go and debate this extensively on wikipedia-l. -- [[User:Jan Hidders|Jan Hidders]] 21:48 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)

Ditto in reverse. The Ockham title redirects here already. What you missed was the ranking of our articles by external search engines: Since most people will be searching for the Occam spelling then we should do all that we can to make sure they find our article on the subject. That is one reason why the Occam spelling should be the title of the page (sic. H1 title). --mav

: As far as I can see that is the only reason that comes close to making a little sense. However, Google is the main external search engine we should worry about and I don't know much about other search engines but for Google's rating it doesn't matter very much if the word is in < H1 > or not because Google puts much more emphasis on the linking structure. So what other arguments are there? Besides, getting as much people to find us should not be our highest priority, that should be building a high-quality encyclopedia. If we can achieve that then the people will find us anyway and with that priority you have a better chance of motivating experts to stay and write in Wikipedia. -- [[User:Jan Hidders|Jan Hidders]] 23:31 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)

:Look, I'm sorry if it's slightly more common to use Occam than Ockham. Many people don't know how to spell words like jeopardy, February, and Wednesday. Should our articles reflect that? Our current president seems to enjoy pronouncing "nuclear" as "nukyalur"... let's please not move that article to his version. :) Yes, I realize that I'm using hyperbole here, but my POINT is that I feel that it should be the responsibility of this encyclopedia, when there are two variant spellings, to support the most ''correct'' one. This is not to say we exclude the other, but that it merely redirect to the ''correct'' one. Now, we can get into a discussion about whether Ockham is truly more ''correct'' than Occam, but that's my 2¢. --[[User:Dante Alighieri|Dante Alighieri]] 22:17 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)

::Correct usage in English is the form most often used by English speakers (there is no centralized committee deciding these things). If we stray from that concept too far then we enter into the realm of competing ideas on just what is ''most'' correct. And for terms ported into English form non-Latin-1 languages this opens up a can of worms. Granted this particular case isn't as clear cut as many others are but there still is a majority usage at hand; Occam. The fact of the matter is that Ockham's Razor has been used by English speakers for so long that the spelling has mutated to be more pronouncable and easier to spell by English speakers. Thus we have "Occam's Razor". The guy's name hasn't been used by English speakers to any comparable extent so it has not been Anglicized. This is part of the evolution of English. --mav

Right. We are not a style guide or usage guide. Our mission is only to report, not to prescribe! Sorry for shouting, but I thought you'd ''hear'' me better if I raised my voice ;-)

For example, there is my beloved word ''[[hacker]]''. All who are truly informed and righteous know that the REAL MEANING of hacker is a person who enjoys extending the capabilities of computer systems. Thus, Linus Torvalds is a hacker. Those nasty, money-grubbing folks in the news media '''persist in using the innocent term ''hacker'' to mean "someone who breaks into computer systems or cracks copy-protection". They are wrong, WRONG, '''''WRONG!!!'''''

We should enforce the correct meaning, right?

No.

It is our sad yet earnest duty to use the word the way it's most commonly used.

And now I climb down from my soapbox and rest a while, hoping my blood pressure returns to normal. I will go outside and look at butterflies and flower blossoms....

--[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]]

: I couldn't disagree more. An encyclopedia is a work of reference and therefore prescribes by definition. You cannot write a good encyclopedia without paying attention to whether your use of language is precise and correct. If you use in an encyclopedia the word "hacker" you have to make sure you use it in a correct way. -- [[User:Jan Hidders|Jan Hidders]] 23:31 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)

:So no one minds if the entire article uses the spelling Ockham but it's titled Occam?!?! --[[User:Dante Alighieri|Dante Alighieri]] 22:48 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)

:: Indeed. That's probably the strongest argument against putting articles under the "common usage" title instead of the "more correct" title. It forces you more or less to use the common usage name in the article itself where you normally would use the more correct name. That's very annoying, especially for people who actually know a thing or two about the subject and would like to contribute. -- [[User:Jan Hidders|Jan Hidders]] 23:31 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)

:::See my comment below. --mav

::That's fine with me since that is a style issue and not a naming convention issue. You should state in the first line that the most widely used spelling is "Occam" but that academics prefer to use Ockham. This is how I treat pseudonyms (See [[Linda Lovelace]] and [[Billy the Kid]]) --mav

::Well, if you're gonna keep pestering me about it, then I guess I better change the spelling. Done. --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]]

:::Nooooo!!! My beautiful plan to change the spelling to Ockham... ruined! *sob* ;) --[[User:Dante Alighieri|Dante Alighieri]] 22:55 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)

::You're funny and good-natured. It's been a pleasure making your acquaintance. And now I must go off-line for the weekend. Bye! --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]]

Sorry, but the course of action here is simply not logical. Naming conventions are just that, conventions, they should not be treated as dogma, especially in border cases. The current variant with interchanging spelling is the more confusing one, and that's the problem. The Google check is not very helpful either, as the difference is marginal. Also, the claim that Occam is an americanized version is incorrect, it has been used earlier (since Latin has no "k") and is apparently now increasingly being corrected.

The article should be at Ockham's Razor. So far this is the option that most people support. I say we move it. --[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] 00:04 Dec 7, 2002 (UTC)

:The world is not a logical place and trying to make it conform to logic is not our role here. As Ed said, we are here to report, not prescribe. The usage of "Occam's Ravor" has diverged from the spelling of William's last name as part of the evolution of our language. BTW, 50% greater is more than a "marginal" difference. --mav

:: Marginal in the sense that the correct form is sufficiently wide-spread to use it here. Note that the town of Ockham, Surrey [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&safe=off&q=ockham+surrey still exists] in England. See what I wrote above about the etymology -- it's the other way around. Sorry, but in the absence of consensus, we'll have no way to make a decision except by voting. If the opinions haven't shifted by tomorrow, I'll move the article. --[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]]

:::Haven't you heard that VottingIsEvil? ;) Besides you can't vote away a naming convention. Unless there is a clear consensus to change a convention then it isn't changed. There isn't a clear consensus to move this article so it shouldn't be moved. There is no reason not to use the academically correct spelling throughout the article in the same way as Boreman is used throughout the [[Linda Lovelace]] article or Bonney is used throughout the [[Billy the Kid]] article. That is a style issue. Naming conventions are designed so that the largest number of people can find the article and link to it easily. --mav

::::1) Need I point you to my reply, [http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?VotingIsGood VotingIsGood]? 2) We're not voting it away, we are interpreting it differently. 3) That's illogical, because that means a particular POV is retained, which is also not supported by consensus. "Being first" does not equate "being right" and I hope we never seriously consider such a policy. 4) We already discussed the finding issue. That's not a problem.

:::: Sure, it's not a big issue, and I can certainly sleep with Occam's Razor if the balance changes. I'm primarily interested in making sure that our conventions are not interpreted dogmatically where it makes absolutely no sense to do so. In the absence of a good decision making process, written conventions can quickly become scripture. The anti-anglicization people had a few good arguments, and they are especially applicable in cases like this one (which is not even about anglicization, but about ''latinization'' of an English word!).--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]]

This one is not a big issue for me. Clearly both forms are commonly used. A more appropriate rule for this situation might lie in an extension of the American/British English rule: When there are two commonly used English forms prefer that used by the person starting the article.

That being said put my vote down as somewhat in favour of keeping the article where it is. [[User:Eclecticology|Eclecticology]] 00:53 Dec 7, 2002 (UTC)

----

Can we compromise on leaving the article at Occam for Google ranking reasons, pointing out in the first paragraph that Ockham is correct, and using Ockham throughout? [[User:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]] 03:06 Dec 7, 2002 (UTC)

Note to Axel: Mathematicians consistently spell it "Occam's Razor". I am a PhD Mathematician and have never seen it spelled any other way in the literature. It is definitely NOT NPOV to assert that one spelling is "correct"; one reflects the geographic origin of the philosopher, but the other reflects long-established usage, including usage in the sciences (naturally enough, excluding history). --[[User:LenBudney]]

::I didn't assert that the Ockham spelling is correct; I asserted that historians and philosophers consider it to be correct, which is the truth. Second, mathematicians count among the laypersons in this debate, and the laypersons are already mentioned. The concept has no particular connection to mathematics. [[User:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]] 05:03 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)

::I just saw your change comments, and beg to differ: Mathematicians are certainly NOT laymen in this discussion. They (and other hard scientists) are among the prime users of Occam's Razor; they are AT LEAST as relevant to the discussion as the historians and philosophers are. --[[User:LenBudney]]

::I have to agree with Axel here. There really is no reason to mention mathematicians specifically. You might as well also state the preferred spelling by Fundamentalist Christians, who also are familar with the term because it is thrown in their faces so often. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]]

:::I changed it to "scientists", lumping together the principal users of Occam's Razor. At issue here is that experts of historical bent spell it "Okham", but "Occam" is not merely a layman's error: experts who use the principal and consider it foundational to their vocations also spell it "Occam".

::::I for one am happy with that. --mav

: I can live with that, even though I think it wouldn't affect Google ranking that much and I still feel that we should worry more about being correct and less about our ranking in external search engines. -- [[User:Jan Hidders|Jan Hidders]] 14:36 Dec 7, 2002 (UTC)

:I've already suggested exactly the same thing above. And Jan, what might be corrcect for historians and philosophers in this case isn't the same thing that is correct for mathematicians and also the majority of our readers who don't fall into any to those categories. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]]

::We are all historians and philosophers. :-) What the majority of readers think is correct is IMO irrelevant. If the majority thinks that creationism is science are we then going to report it as such? Of course not. An encyclopedia is supposed to reflect the current standing in academic thinking. So if the relevant scientists say that Ockham's razor is the most correct form then that is were we should put it. Anyway, the article stays where it is, the discussion is closed, I have better things to do, so you may have the last word. :-) -- [[User:Jan Hidders|Jan Hidders]] 21:27 Dec 7, 2002 (UTC)

:::I agree that what the majority ''thinks'' is often not correct and that we should always try to report the current academic understanding. I would add that our [[NPOV]] policy states that we should also report on how large groups of people interpret and express the things we describe. But it is still very important for us to try to anticipate what readers will be searching for and linking to - thus our preference for common names for page titles. By all means we should have the more technically correct names in the articles themselves and (where appropriate) have those terms redirected to the common titles. So the nature of the Internet, our method of interlinking articles and the fact that mostly non-expert volunteers are contributing are the main reasons why we do things a bit differently than dead-tree encyclopedias. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]]

I think the logical support for the current compromise is rather weak, for the reasons I already gave above, but I can live with it. --[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]]

----

After all the debate about the name (largely irrelevant to the quality of the article) I think we should congratulate ourselves that this article is now well written and comprehensive.

And btw Ockham is a lovely little place. Do give it a visit if you're ever passing through England. -- [[User:Nferrier]]

----

Moving this example out:

: Similarly, ancient Greeks would probably consider demons to be a much simpler explanation of disease transmission than germs, which were barely understood even in the 19th century (see also Ignaz Semmelweis).

Reasons:

* We do not really have 90% of ancient Greek writings, so any assumption about ancient Greek beliefs is shaky at best. [[Democritus]] posited [[atom]]s as the building blocks of matter, for example, but most his writings did not survive the Dark Ages. Many early ancient writings and beliefs strike us as distinctly modern. We ''do'' know that later Christians believed in demons as the origins of all diseases for centuries, and punished those who didn't, but this leads us too far into POV vs. NPOV territory.

* It's not really a good argument anyway, because the lack of simplicity of the demon hypothesis is fairly obvious (requires: definition of demons, explanation of lack of observation, interaction between demon matter and physical matter, assumptions of demon motives etc. etc. etc. ......). To make such an argument plausibly would require reference to an ancient writing which weighs the demon hypothesis against other arguments and considers it to be simpler. More likely, Occam's Razor wasn't applied at all by the demon-lovers.

Perhaps a short reference to the debate about Semmelweis' findings would be better, as here we have two hypotheses (the balance of juices vs. invisible germs), the simplicity of which was not immediately quantifiable.

I'm also not too happy with the creation vs. evolution example. Evolution requires hardly more assumptions than "scientific" creationism, especially as the more "scientific" creationists acknowledge that evolution takes place on a microbiological level, or in computer simulations -- these variants require almost all of the assumptions of evolution, and then a huge body of assumptions about an intelligent designer. The more biblical variants require more assumptions about the designer, and less about evolution. Therefore the argument seems to violate NPOV as currently presented. --[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]]

----

[http://groups.google.com/groups?q=wikipedia&hl=de&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=bobR9.1712%24Sa3.129760%40twister.tampabay.rr.com&rnum=1 This Usenet post] seems to contest the following Wikipedia claim:

: Ockham himself used his principle to argue that God's existence cannot be deduced from reason alone.

Can someone add a reference for this claim, please? --[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]]

:: After a little looking around:

::* http://skepdic.com/occam.html (4th paragraph)

::* http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/o/ockham.htm (section Reason and Authority)

::* http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_logic_occam.htm (about the 10th paragraph)

::* http://www.drury.edu/ess/philsci/Outline2.html (the part about Ockham)

::* http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15636a.htm (2nd paragraph)

::* http://www.y2kind.com/ockhams_razor/

:: By the way, shouldn't it be pointed out that there is a strong and a weak interpretation of the razor? The strong interpretation is that the simpeler theories are more likely to be true and the weak interpretation is that it is just more practical to investigate the simpeler ones first. The former claim is, I believe, a metaphysical claim and the latter one is not and AFAIK the usual one in the common philosophy of science. -- [[User:Jan Hidders|Jan Hidders]] 13:15 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)