Ockham's razor

CSGnet Archive CSG1997
1

[Martin Taylor 970320 12:15]

Bruce Gregory (970319.1625 EST)]

Martin Taylor 970319 15:30

>
> Within my approach, though, the unobservables _do_ matter to the plausibility
> of the model. If they are newly devised, ad_hoc unobservables introduced for
> the purposes of this particular model, they are (and the model is) less
> plausible
> than if they are unobservables that have proved plausible as components of
> other models. The unobservable "energy" and "conservation of momentum" are
> of this kind.

Ockhams razor n. A rule in science and philosophy stating that
entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is
interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing
theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown
phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already
known. Also called the law of parsimony. [After William of
OCKHAM.]

I've sent Bruce off-line my 1972 paper on Ockham's razor, which underlies
my recent comments in this direction. Several regular CSGnet participants
have had it in the past, but I will offer an electronic copy to anyone
who cares to ask for it by e-mail to <mmt@servtech.com> (not by reply
to this address--I won't send you a copy if you ask at this address,
because it is at home). Please use the Subject line <Ockham's razor paper,

.

Incidentally, if the capitalization of OCKHAM is intended as a spelling
check, you should be aware that in the days before Dr. Johnson's dictionary,
English spellings were quite varied, particularly of proper names. William
is variously said to be of Ockham, Ogham, Occam, Ockam, and several other
places of the same sound. Shakespear has been Shagsper, Shaksper, Shakespere,
and who knows how many other names.

Wherever he came from, William's idea is more sound than just that "the
simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable". My paper
suggests that the simplest is actually far more likely to be correct.
(And that it is even more likely that an undiscovered, even simpler
theory is actually the correct one).

Martin

Martin

2

[Martin Taylor 970323 01:25]

A couple of people have asked for my Ockham's razor working paper, but the
first one to whom I sent it did not have an immediate way to read RTF
format. So instead of sending out copies, I now refer anyone who wants
to see the paper to my Web page. Go to
<http://www.servtech.com/mmt/public>
and follow the link to the Ockham's razor paper.

Sorry for the confusion. This ought to be the easiest way all round, and
I should have thought of it earlier.

Martin

3

A couple of people have asked for my Ockham's razor working paper, but the
first one to whom I sent it did not have an immediate way to read RTF
format. So instead of sending out copies, I now refer anyone who wants
to see the paper to my Web page. Go to
<http://www.servtech.com/mmt/public&gt;
and follow the link to the Ockham's razor paper.

Martin, that URL doesn't work. This is the correct one:

        http://www.servtech.com/public/mmt

John

···

--
John E. Anderson
jander@unf.edu

4

[Martin Taylor 970324 09:45]

In some kind of a mental fog, I gave the wrong URL for my Ockham's razor
paper. Thanks to John Anderson for pointing it our to me. The correct
URL is (I hope):
<http://www.servtech.com/public/mmt>

Martin