“The idea that simple explanations are more likely to be correct than complicated ones is known as Ockham’s Razor or Occam’s Razor — named after the English medieval monk and philosopher William of Ockham.”
you’re on the right track, but this is not entirely accurate. occam’s razor is about avoiding unnecessary complexity, not aiming for simplicity for it’s own sake. it encourages us to choose the hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions and thus introduces the least amount of new, unproven variables
this often results in simpler explanations, but the aim is not simplicity itself, but parsimony — the sparing use of speculative or unsupported elements in our explanations. this doesn't mean that more complex explanations are never accurate, but they require more substantial evidence before they should be accepted over less complex alternatives
occam’s razor is also mainly a guideline for hypothesis formation. it suggests that the simplest explanation that fits the data is the best place to start, but not necessarily the final answer. further testing and observation may reveal that we need a more complex explanation. in other words, it doesn't replace rigorous scientific testing and verification
creationism does not follow this guideline as it introduces unnecessary, untestable assumptions, starts as a conclusion rather than a hypothesis, and lacks observable data. natural selection requires far fewer assumptions about darwin’s observations and is a starting point for further investigation
pretty much everything else you have described is already built into the definition of occam’s razor. what you’re really challenging are the common misconceptions & oversimplifications of the concept
“The idea that simple explanations are more likely to be correct than complicated ones is known as Ockham’s Razor or Occam’s Razor — named after the English medieval monk and philosopher William of Ockham.”
you’re on the right track, but this is not entirely accurate. occam’s razor is about avoiding unnecessary complexity, not aiming for simplicity for it’s own sake. it encourages us to choose the hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions and thus introduces the least amount of new, unproven variables
this often results in simpler explanations, but the aim is not simplicity itself, but parsimony — the sparing use of speculative or unsupported elements in our explanations. this doesn't mean that more complex explanations are never accurate, but they require more substantial evidence before they should be accepted over less complex alternatives
occam’s razor is also mainly a guideline for hypothesis formation. it suggests that the simplest explanation that fits the data is the best place to start, but not necessarily the final answer. further testing and observation may reveal that we need a more complex explanation. in other words, it doesn't replace rigorous scientific testing and verification
creationism does not follow this guideline as it introduces unnecessary, untestable assumptions, starts as a conclusion rather than a hypothesis, and lacks observable data. natural selection requires far fewer assumptions about darwin’s observations and is a starting point for further investigation
pretty much everything else you have described is already built into the definition of occam’s razor. what you’re really challenging are the common misconceptions & oversimplifications of the concept
That‘s a fair assessment. I’ll take that feedback and update the essay.