Check out Squarespace: squarespace.com/BRAINFOOD for 10% off on your first purchase.

@StfuFFS

2 жыл бұрын

Occams is NOT "the simplest answer is correct". When you say it like that, you've predestined it be wrong. The actual Occam's Razor is "the answer that requires the fewest assumptions is the most likely". Razors are supposed to be neither proofs nor conclusions, they're supposed to be tools for choosing starting points. And i blame the movie Contact for introducing the world to that idiotic misunderstanding of Occam's.

@commandZee

2 жыл бұрын

This video should have been sponsored by Manscaped 😁 @8:25 Time traveler 😲

@jackmackakaheavyguyhaiku545

2 жыл бұрын

Doesn't the concept of Ockham's Razor say that the "simplest explanation is USUALLY the correct one"? If true, then even the Razor itself carves out the an allowance for exceptions, no?

@aick

2 жыл бұрын

​@@StfuFFS Stay tuned for when Simon tries to cover Incompleteness. ☺

@barrydysert2974

2 жыл бұрын

8:50 🚨Errata🚨 "geocentric"😱 Heliocentric! 👍 🙏🙂 FactBoi

My issue with it is this. People tend to forget the wording, "The simplest solution is MOST OFTEN right." Not always. I see a lot of folk use Ockham's Razor as an absolute instead of an increased chance.

@bethmoore7722

2 жыл бұрын

There you go. Now I don’t have to make that point, thank you.

@greenaum

2 жыл бұрын

It's not even necessarily that they're the most often right, they're just the best place to start.

@j.f.fisher5318

2 жыл бұрын

also, our hardwired neurological bias is to prefer complex theories. Imagine asking someone why something didn't get done. If they give just one excuse it feels fake. But if they give two excuses that feels truthier. But then we apply the same thinking to things like science theories. We need Occams razor to remind us not to do that.

@fukpoeslaw3613

2 жыл бұрын

I didn't like the word "unnecessary" in "... anti-razor opposing the unnecessary elimination of complexity ..." cause it suggests it's possible to eliminate some things, which one should do then as per Ockham.

@whyarethereusernames

2 жыл бұрын

It comes back to the fallacy fallacy. just because something doesn't follow rules of logic doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong

It bothers me this episode wasn't sponsored by a shaving razor

@snacks1755

2 жыл бұрын

Manscaped missing out on a primo marketing chance.

@davehassall5402

10 ай бұрын

I'm sure there's a simple explanation

@joshuacheung6518

9 ай бұрын

They didn't pay enough

@MaryAnnNytowl

7 ай бұрын

Or, wasn't there a phone called the Razr that was brought back recently?

I've found that Ockham's razor is best applied in storywriting. One should maintain deepness while not overdoing complexity.

@isbey

8 ай бұрын

I’m not sure I agree with this completely. As a general rule, sure , you shouldn’t make your stories so convoluted that they don’t make sense, but if done carefully, an extremely complex story can be very enriching for the audience who understands it

@KyrieFortune

8 ай бұрын

someone has never played 999

@gerritvalkering1068

8 ай бұрын

In writing, the equivalent is 'Chekhov's gun'. Don't add entities unless they are relevant. If you describe something, like the decor of a room, it has to serve a purpose. Either to better impress the wealth or status of the owner (or lack thereof) or because items that were described will be relevant later, or something. Not just to show your skills at describing decor, or to satisfy your inner interior decorator. Unless you're writing for an interior decoration magazine. You get the point. Don't add the life story of every single person the main character interacts with, which is something beginning writers tend to do too much. You can also play with this by only briefly describing something only for it to become important later. An excellent example of that is the movie 'The Usual Suspects'

@mapmoop451

8 ай бұрын

@@isbey case and point: the marathon games (and pathways into darkness)

@SkateDaddyDrewski

8 ай бұрын

I disagree, story writing can have complexity and probably should(in my opinion). Razor is more for theoretics.

I took philosophy courses in Uni and they specifically covered that Ockham’s Razor was optional. It always got brought up in textbooks in situations of pragmatism. Like “the house is making noises. What’s the best explanation: ghosts, or settling?” And the practical thing to do there is probably NOT to assume ghosts are haunting you, even if you could be right.

The biggest point I got out of Ockham's Razor was not necessarily about complexity, but more about assumptions or unproven hypotheses. If you can explain a thing using proven (or highly supported) ideas plus one new idea, that is better than an hypothesis that uses multiple new ideas, even if the new one seems "simpler." For instance, a genie or other magical creature just doing things is very simple, until you start to look into how many highly supported ideas it either ignores or contradicts. If you can explain happenings without an unproven genie, the genie is unneeded and should be cut away.

@TearDownGenesis

2 жыл бұрын

Very true. I find its good as a counter towards creationism but rarely effective in convincing people. Its also good at countering things like Aliens. Often people think that "aliens" or "god" are simple but they're invoking things that are far more complex i.e. invoking a omnipotent being is always more complex than whatever other explanation was given. A major problem is Ockham's Razor can favor ignorance. As what seems simple may only be that way because a person doesn't understand the implications of what they are suggesting. Flat Earth, for example, seems simpler, since its "look I don't see any curve" but in reality it messes up the world map, not to mention the entire realm of physics.

@QBCPerdition

2 жыл бұрын

@@TearDownGenesis very true. The thing with the flat earth is the same as my example with the genie, it seems simpler, but it contradicts known or heavily supported ideas. But that is why I don't think Ockham's Razor is truly about simplicity, but more about invoking multiple unproven ideas when one (or none) is sufficient. This should also not be used as an argument for ignorance, though I also have seen it used and derided as such, it just means that if someone truly wants to show their more complex solution is the right one, they need to do the work and prove it, no one is going to take their word for it.

@ginnyjollykidd

2 жыл бұрын

Your idea of new discoveries, hypotheses, and theories based on previously - proven, consistent, reproducible, and predictive, accepted body of established science is quite a strong principle. That body of accepted science is part of the current model of science, The Standard Theory of Physics or The Standard Model.

@michaelchildish

2 жыл бұрын

"extraordinary claims, require extraordinary proof" is a good one though I'm not sure who said it

@MusicalRaichu

2 жыл бұрын

my physics teacher's theory about little demons explaining friction was very simple and explained an awful lot. my favourite bit was that a car's tyres squeal when it stops suddenly because you've trampled hundreds of little demons to death.

I also appreciate Christopher Hitchen's Razor: That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

@ferengiprofiteer9145

2 жыл бұрын

The true curse of Oak Island.

@ivanivanovic5857

2 жыл бұрын

If someone says they have evidence, you have to actually listen to it though. If you just shout over them whenever they try to show you the evidence and then claim you haven't seen any, then you're probably...the US supreme court...

@RLKmedic0315

2 жыл бұрын

@@ivanivanovic5857 you are correct, but a lot of people seem to think they have evidence of something when all they really have are statements taken out of context and then repeated by others. The difficulty lies in knowing what actual evidence exists, then accounting for bias (both for and against) and then making the correct inferences which the evidence leads you to. Much easier said than done.

@squorsh

2 жыл бұрын

No that's not true

@iangrau-fay3604

2 жыл бұрын

@@squorsh which isn't?

The problem arises with Ockham's Razor when it is presented as a "proof" of some idea, when the intent of it is not to prove anything, but rather to more quickly lead you to hypotheses which are likely to be correct.

@Superfantastictop10

7 ай бұрын

Exactly 💯

@caroljo420

7 ай бұрын

It's like the doctors who say, "When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras." Sometimes (rarely) it IS zebras, but first rule out the most likely things by testing for them.

@dawnkeyy

7 ай бұрын

And if you didn't plan on testing anything, you're probably better off just picking the one that brings you most peace.

The thing is that I would see a similar argument when I was doing psychology at college. The reason why is because, much of the time, when criticising a theory we would usually call a theory "reductionist in its approach" without necessarily explaining why it was reductionist. To counter that, our teacher would usually ask "why should we say something is more complex, if we cannot find evidence for it to be more complex than it is?". This was something I now also use as a teacher as it encourages students to follow up their argument with evidence rather than just using a key term hoping for marks.

@hollyhartwick3832

8 ай бұрын

Ockham's Razor, as used today, isn't even about simplicity. It's about making useless assumptions. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is pretty simple, but it's rooted in almost nothing but assumptions. Solutions that are built upon the fewest assumptions (thereby the greatest number of verifiable facts) is most likely correct, or very near correct.

@hollyhartwick3832

7 ай бұрын

@@LTNetjak - Not sure it's so much a "modern academia" thing. Philosophy is, and has always been, a bit messy. As a "soft science" not dealing in absolutes or empiricism, and often dealing in abstract ideas, it can be hard to nail down concrete definitions. It's just the nature of philosophy itself. Many things often come down to general definitions most agree on, but there are so many grey areas, exceptions and variations to concepts that the details wind up becoming ongoing debates. Welcome to Philosophy 101. 😂🤪

It is good for engineering also. The least amount of pieces to do something , the better.

@danielbolin2361

2 жыл бұрын

A complex object is more likely to have something break as there are more parts that can break. A simple object is less likely to have something break as there are simply fewer parts that can break.

@user-dg9pu4pe9d

2 жыл бұрын

The KISS principle

@the_ranger_zone3391

2 жыл бұрын

The germans in ww2 are a prime example. Great if it works, but if t doesnt your in trouble

@IapetusStag

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, like the evolutionary mess called the human feet. It has so many moving parts leftover from our apes ancestors using it to hold on to trees, but now that it's used for walking as a bipedal, it is the leading cause of... well... all sorts of foot problems from arthritis on the foot to sprains.

@paulpratt

2 жыл бұрын

Be wary of overconstrainment. Sometimes more pieces, that have some freedom of independent movement, are less likely to fail in actual use.

Discussion reminds me a little of Einstein quote: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

@TroubleToby3040

2 жыл бұрын

The irony here is that this phrase itself is overly complicated. The only objectively correct understanding of the part "Everything should be made as simple as possible" renders the "but not simpler" part redundant. If a thing is as simple as it can be while still being that thing, then, if it were made simpler it would not still be that thing.

@owenshebbeare2999

2 жыл бұрын

@@TroubleToby3040 There is another take on it: making things simpler, effectively a low resolution look at something where detail is actually needed, is a real issie. Over-simplification is a serious problem, be it deliberate or accidental/well-intentioned.

@mrjones2721

2 жыл бұрын

It’s like working out a problem in economics. You can bring in a million variables, then winnow out the ones that have minimal effect, and refine the problem until you come to the least cluttered way of looking at it. Or you can barge in and yell something about the Freemasons.

@robertromero8692

2 жыл бұрын

@@TroubleToby3040 I think Einstein was saying that people TRY to make it simpler at the risk of ignoring reality.

@Syurtpiutha

2 жыл бұрын

@@mrjones2721 This. People often recoil at complexity, especially when that complexity challenges some deeply held belief.

It is difficult to decide which is more irritating; people misusing/misunderstanding ockams razor or people just outright stating an opinion as fact. Both are so infuriating, the temptation to turn violent becomes hard to resist.

@qty1315

7 ай бұрын

The thing is that "This is my opinion," is inherently a fact, providing that you're arguing/debating in good faith. Like, if you're debating someone and they say "It is my opinion that black people all have large genitals," you have to assume that's right if you're assuming that the person is arguing in good faith. You can state "I have proof that some black people have small genitals," but you can't prove that the person doesn't believe that all black people have large genitals.

@fuckel98

7 ай бұрын

@@qty1315no, no, and more no. people do not argue in good faith for a plethora of reasons; not the least of which is that to do so is to assume all parties involved are actually able to discern the difference between stating facts and opining with conviction. this is my opinion is not inherently a fact, it is merely a statement of belief. the only fact is that the person spoke something they believe, not that what they have stated they believe is correct. to that point, more often than not, people lack the ability to speack accurately. example "that is disgusting" when they really mean "i find that to be disgusting" one is stating as if is objective fact, the other a clearly stated opinion. people do not speak accurately enough to argue in good faith, especially on youtube of all places. your saying the phrase "this is my opinion" is inherently a fact is a poor man's semantics. what follows that phrase is NOT FACT, even if the speaker believes it to be so. no opinion supercedes fact, state your beliefs all you want but if they do not align with objective fact, you're just wrong and need to adjust your perspective. an opinion such as the example you gave is the height of stupidity, no one would opine such a thing when you can very easily with the tiniest bit of logic, know for fact that that is not true. your belief in something being true will never matter in the face of facts that outright disprove your precious opinion. and you can absolutely prove your example wildly incorrect. it is one thing to state your opinion with logic, reason and evidence to back it, it is another to talk out of your ass as you are and claiming it to be just as valid as fact. grow up.

I think it's interesting nobody in the comments seems to be bringing up how Richard Feynman was attacked by physicists for his simple diagrams that show how particles interact with each other. It's both proof of Ockham's razor in it's perfect niche, while also demonstrating that in science the simplest explanation is not always the correct one, especially in quantum mechanics. Physicists at the time couldn't accept that such simple visual (emphasis on visual) explanations could exist as quantum mechanics was viewed (and mostly still is) as something that cannot be understood intuitively, but only mathematically. Hence the difficulty in explaining these concepts to the lay person.

@patheddles4004

2 жыл бұрын

Useful lesson I learned some years ago as a junior software developer: really good code tends to look deceptively simple, like anyone could have written it. Simple readable code is /much/ harder to write. Likewise as a tech writer: it's really hard to write in a way that's easy to read, with or without very technical detail.

@donaldhobson8873

2 жыл бұрын

What is the simple wrong quantum theory, and the more complicated correct one?

@biologicallyawptimized

2 жыл бұрын

@@donaldhobson8873 It's not that the theory was wrong, it was considered too simple for quantum mechanics. I was referring to Feynman diagrams which are simple, visual representations of how sub-atomic particles interact. They were a huge breakthrough but people were reluctant to accept it because they just didn't think you could simplify anything in quantum mechanics that much, let alone visually represent it with a diagram. I tried to link an example but it causes errors on my comment for some reason. Just google feynman diagrams and you will see what they look like if you are curious

@qty1315

7 ай бұрын

I remember there was this scientist who came up with a revolutionary breakthrough in... something, I don't know what. But, a reporter asked him if he could explain his discovery in simple terms that the average person could understand, and he said "No. The people who can understand it are already aware of it, the people who can't would need to spend a few years taking university courses on the subject to understand it."

I've never seen Ockham's Razor as being about complexity but about assumption. A seriously complex explanation with zero assumptions is more likely to be correct than a very simple explanation with nothing but assumptions.

@SuperNeospace

2 жыл бұрын

It's funny that you say that because I can think of many many situations that's untrue. Like think about the number of wrong answers to questions you can give with convincing and complex answers. Like gravity. Gravity is the complex answer to why does shit fall. But it's wrong because gravity as a force isn't real it's just space and time warping around mass. Which is a surprisingly simple answer that makes very little intuitive sense or imo it doesn't seem intuitive

@1q34w

2 жыл бұрын

@@SuperNeospace did you skip this part "but about assumption"?

@SlayingSin

2 жыл бұрын

Like people who theorized that Trump colluded with Russia. Albeit that really isn't ockhams razor but just a plain and simple lie.

@coniccinoc

2 жыл бұрын

I think that is very well stated and I feel it gives me a better understanding. Thank you for that.

@leeman27534

2 жыл бұрын

no, occam's razor is basically measuring two similar things and basically guesstimating that the one that's less complex, requires the least assumptions, is 'probably' right. but a seriously complex explaination isn't 'even' with a simple explaination, and the 'equal weight' ish stuff is important for this.

People also tend to misuse Ockham's Razor when they clearly prefer one side or the other. "Everything else being equal" includes one's own bias.

I've noticed a trend that at least some people display when arguing on the internets. - They come up with painfully convoluted explains for simple things (ie: invent a conspiracy where none exists) - They offer a painfully simplistic "solution" to an extremely complex problem.

I think the biggest issue is any idea can be as simple as you want, if you let it break from reality.

@instantnoob

7 ай бұрын

That's true, and Hitchen's Razor is more appropriate for those cases, but Ockham's Razor is still applicable. Take, for example, evolution and creationism. There are facts and evidence that can be observed and agreed upon by both sides. Even the youth earth creation belief in the Aberhamic flood myth includes evolution from a smaller number of "kinds" a non-defined category of life, to the variety of species alive today. One can use Ockham's Razor as evidence to support that between the two beliefs, the one that assumes evolution is possible and also that supernatural forces exist, is a less reasonable model than the belief that assumes evolution is possible and does not assume that supernatural forces exist, because it makes more and unnecessary assumptions. If one believes that all can be explained broadly by supernatural forces, it can seem on the surface to be simpler than all the many fields of science counted individually, but to believe in the *super* natural is to implicitly accept the natural.

"Simplest" in the context of Ockham's Razor means "requires the fewest new assumptions". GR requires fewer assumptions than Newtonian gravity to explain the recorded observations.

@spacecadet35

2 жыл бұрын

But Okham's Razor does not apply in this case as the experimental data clearly supports GR in most fringe cases.

@themonkeymoo

2 жыл бұрын

@@spacecadet35 That's true, but the experiments that demonstrate that were specifically performed to test the discrepancies between Newton's and GR's predictions. Occam applied before those experiments were ever devised, let alone carried out, because of observations of Mercury's orbital precession and some other things. Those all *could* be explained in Newtonian physics with appropriate additional assumptions. They are also accurately predicted by GR, but GR was devised in part to help explain those specific discrepancies. Consequently, it's the experiments inspired specifically by GR's predictions that bear the most weight. Also, it's not really "fringe" anymore. GPS has effectively been an ongoing experiment in both GR and SR for decades now. As a result, we have more experimental evidence for both types of Relativity than we have for basically anything else.

@TheMapman01

2 жыл бұрын

I dont think it applies in this way because newtonian mechanics in fact does not accurately predict observations involving large distance/speed/mass/energy etc. So... That's why relativity was necessary... to explain those. This is actually a good example though. Once your assumptions no longer make sense you need to search again and use the razor. So they didn't just say "aliens do it". So relativity has less assumptions than that that. Because it is testable.

@spacecadet35

2 жыл бұрын

@@themonkeymoo - Read "Edge cases" for "Fringe cases". In Physics in particular, and science in general, the ultimate arbiter of correctness is experimentation. Ockham's Razor is what you use until you get the results. In the case of Mercury, it could be explained by one assumption using Newtonian Physics and at least two assumptions using General Relativity. Also, Mercury cannot be used as a proof of General Relativity as it did not produce any new data. But it was good supporting data.

@jerry2357

2 жыл бұрын

For most cases though, Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation is easier to use and just as accurate.

I am a scientist and I think you did a very good job with this. The principle behind Ockham's Razor comes up a lot when designing experiments and explaining them. The simplest explanation is not always correct, but you can save a lot of time by testing the simplest explanation first and building up assumptions from there as needed instead of jumping straight to a more complicated explanation. This process can even be used as justification for a more complex model by showing that simpler models generate worse results and why.

@travcollier

9 ай бұрын

It is more than just the practical stuff though. A version of Occam's Razor is a provable result for learning systems / algorithms. Given two models which fit training data equally well, the one with the fewer free parameters is more likely to fit new data generated by the same process which produced the training data. Closely related to the issue of over-fitting. Considering how many things can be described as learning systems (eg. evolution), it is actually pretty deep.

@andmicbro1

8 ай бұрын

Well and Ockham's Razor doesn't play well when you have very complex and unintuitive systems. Because the simplest answer is absolutely NOT correct, and isn't going to work. Try applying Ockham's Razor to quantum mechanics for example, and you're going to be completely wrong almost every time.

@travcollier

8 ай бұрын

@@andmicbro1 That's just misunderstanding Occam's Razor, at least the more formal version of it. It isn't about how intuitive an explanation is, or how few words it takes to describe it. That's not what "simple" means in this context. It is more about how many parameters you have to set to make the model fit the data. A model/explanation with tons of parameters can fit most anything, but provides very little predictive power. A ad absurdum example... "An omnipotent god did it" can explain anything, but tells us nothing about what will happen next. A god which could do anything is the least parsimonious explanation possible despite being a very short statement.

@xwing2417

8 ай бұрын

Troubleshooting would be a fair example. Is it plugged in, did you check your fuses, etc.

@AndrewGivens

8 ай бұрын

Essentially, isn't this how good police investigation work is carried out? Start simple and, keep expanding the investigation to the less likely culprits until you find the right one? It just seems supremely logical to me.

I love that line you added at the end, Ockham's Razor combined with the anti-razor with "you can get a nice close shave just be careful not to cut too close" it's so perfectly explains the two systems of thought and really summed up the video nicely! bloody brilliant

In the medical field we have an often used saying (normally related to diagnosis) "If you hear hoof beats, think horses not zebras". Closely related to Occum's Razor but slanted a bit for medical assumptions and the tendency to look for rare disease and conditions rather than the more common ones.

@flagmichael

8 ай бұрын

The trick is to check _first_ for common problems, while not jumping to any conclusions.

There’s something amusing about Simon making shaving jokes when clearly his face hasn’t been near a razor since William of Ockham lived.

@muninrob

2 жыл бұрын

As a fluffy faced shaggy-beard, I can attest that a beard like Simon's requires daily maintenance, or after a couple days it turns into a beard like mine.....

@SBHKur0

2 жыл бұрын

Good joke 😂

@oblivion155

2 жыл бұрын

I'm fairly certain that he shaves his head which is rather close to his face.

@xerothedarkstar

2 жыл бұрын

Shaved Simon looks like Dobby. The beard was probably the savviest decision he's made thus far.

@c0dy1287

2 жыл бұрын

@@xerothedarkstar Yeah, I went back far enough once and was like "The fuck is this!?" Then I heard Simon's voice and I was like we're aborting out of here, we've gone too far back.

Great video! We were taught a variant the razor in my chemistry degree, as "the less assumptions you need to make, the stronger your hypothesis is" . As a quick note however, in 8:50 I believe you wanted to say Heliocentric!

@AnderGdeT

2 жыл бұрын

fewer assumptions*. The're countable!

@dumdristig

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, I caught that slip, too, he said geocentric, but clearly meant heliocentric.

@ThisIsMego

2 жыл бұрын

@@dumdristig Yeah, me too. Glad I found this comment before I double posted that

@ffggddss

2 жыл бұрын

@@dumdristig Yup, so did I. It's gonna confuse some; I think he should correct it in the Description section. The geocentric model with its cycles & epicycles, is the work of Ptolemy, a couple millennia (or more) ago. Fred

The problem with Ockham's razor is that people forget that it's only supposed to be applied to _unknowns,_ not to things that are well documented and/ or proveable. It's a useful tool for making educated guesses to fill in the gaps for something you can't _immediately_ explain. There are lots of examples of real, observable things that are bafflingly complicated, _especially_ when it comes to politics and advanced tech, that people will simply be unable to wrap their heads around and so will wave around Ockham's razor so that they can claim something along the lines of "obviously the simplest explanation... Is ghosts."

As both a philosophy and later a physics major I REALLY enjoyed this one. You were very complete in your explanation. You gave my mind a wonderful work out.

I find Occam's Razor quite useful when speaking with an interlocuter from the UFO crowd. Any time someone says that a light in the sky is absolute proof of alien visitation, I use it to remind them that there are substantially more reasonable explanations for what we're seeing, including unknown natural phenomena. You can't see a light in the sky and then claim you know what it is, that it's from another planet, and that it's being piloted by aliens that definitely exist, definitely know we exist, definitely have the technology for interplanetary travel, and definitely use it to visit us (I believe they're out there, but I'll need evidence equal to the weight of the aforementioned claims to believe they're here and visiting us). The truth is, it's just a light in the sky and that's all we know most times. That's all we can say. Any other assumptions are just fabrications.

@enigma1247

2 жыл бұрын

Go watch the fighter pilot talk about the tic tac ufo he saw with his own eyes.

@rikorobinson

2 жыл бұрын

@@enigma1247 You seem to be taking my comment a little personally. Sorry, that was no my intent. I'm just calling it like anyone without bias or wishful thinking should. None of them saw it with their own eyes. And even if they did, a "tic tac shaped object in the sky" is just that. You couldn't claim you saw anything more than that. To claim it is anything beyond that is guesswork and to claim it was an alien space craft is a massive leap and just making stuff up to explain something that doesn't readily have an explanation. Until the weight of the evidence equals the weight of the claim, critical thinking skills demand the only logical conclusion the explanation is far more earthly than anything else. Otherwise, this might as well be a religion. Can you imagine if scientists just jumped to conclusions about things with no information? We'd still be in the Stone Age.

@colingenge9999

2 жыл бұрын

Riki, I like how clearly you write.

@tenshimoon

2 жыл бұрын

As someone who likes the UFO phenomenon and stories, I agree. Even a theory like "secret government experimental aircraft" is much more simpler and likely than alien visitations lol. Although the idea of being visited by aliens is fun to imagine, until they actually land in a densely packed area and step out their spacecraft holding up the 🖖 greeting with "We come in peace", well it'll only remain a fun idea to imagine and wonder about

@nicolascageboii6127

Жыл бұрын

​@@enigma1247 clown

I find that ockham's razor is very useful to keep in mind while trouble shooting mechanical issues. A build design with the fewest failure points is often easier to fix, and makes more money than a more efficient design that breaks more often.

@StfuFFS

2 жыл бұрын

Interesting. I do the same in debugging programming. I also consider Occam's foundational to the process of any troubleshooting. "Vacuum doesn't work": 1) Check the plug. 2) Verify outlet has power. 3) Buy a new vacuum. Obviously, the steps in that simplistic example go from "requires the fewest assumptions" to requiring the most. I've also noticed that each additional assumption, whether in medical doctoring or in small appliance troubleshooting, adds more complexity and usually becomes more expensive. Now, it's debatable whether a bad circuit in your house is more expensive than a new vacuum but i think you get my drift.

@johnlawson1167

2 жыл бұрын

@@StfuFFS the steps 1, 2, 3 had me laughing so hard for about 7-8 min straight, if only because I do the same thing with every printer i've ever owned. "oh the ink dried up or its not printing? time for a new printer!" Granted the price of a new printer is often cheaper than replacing the ink.

@StfuFFS

2 жыл бұрын

@@johnlawson1167 Right!?! This business model these ##%%@& printer companies have inflicted on people is unbelievably aggravating. Simon did a video on his Brain Blaze channel about ink cartridges where Danny said that most ink sales run a like 2,000% profit!

@StfuFFS

2 жыл бұрын

@@johnlawson1167 i have sworn a Klingon blood feud on these SOBs and their Great Cyan Lie!

@andrewjohnson6716

2 жыл бұрын

It is also a reflexive principle of differential diagnosis. For instance, the first act of diagnosing a problem with electronics is to check that it’s getting power starting from “is it plugged in, is it turned on?” and ending with testing the wire from source outwards.

In some contexts Occam's Razor cuts away the nonsense and gets to the most obvious solution. In medicine, however, the most obvious solution isn't always correct, although insurance companies and medical practices often would like it to be. I think that sometimes doctors get so used to quickly being able to identify the cause of a problem that when the usual medications and treatments don't work, it's hard for them to change gears and approach the problem more holistically.

@MaryAnnNytowl

7 ай бұрын

Or for a doctor to think about what ELSE might be causing the symptoms. I had to hunt for more possibilities MYSELF and show the doctor the most plausible of the possibilities I found. Turned out that possibility I suggested was, indeed, what's causing my symptoms. Unfortunately, there's not much that can help with it. 🤷🏽‍♀️

Beautifully written and explained. Thanks for posting.

Occam's Razor can be useful, for sure, but yeah, I've had arguments with people where I know for a fact the issue at hand is significantly more complex than their theory, but they insist because of Occam's Razor, they must be correct. Remember: your ignorance of a subject and inability to comprehend a more informed/experienced person's argument isn't proof you are correct.

@JonathanMandrake

2 жыл бұрын

To be fair, the 'theories' those people might have are not to be called scientific theories, for they are completely unscientific. The more I learned about the topics I was interested in (mostly maths,b and a bit of physics, chemistry and programming), the more I learned how nobody could know everything even in just that one area of science anymore. You need at least a year of study to truly understand something that is the least bit complex, and if you don't find anything complex, you're missing something. Even something as simple as a polynomial is so useful and complex that basically any scientific topic will use them at some point, and basically any program uses them. And if you add polynomial fractions to the mix, it gets even complexer. If you haven't studied math at university level (directly or indirectly through physics for example), I can probably tell you some complexities that you will have never considered, yet I'm only in my third semester. I truly cannot think of a topic that is simple enough so that you could understand it extensively after a year, or even 10. But unless you are interested in that topic, you will probably just ignore all that complexity whenever you don't actively need it

@ohauss

2 жыл бұрын

What these people forget is that Occam's Razor is not a standard of evidence, but a standard of efficiency in the absence of evidence.

@ashkebora7262

2 жыл бұрын

@@ohauss Bingo. If something is proven, Occam's Razor _no longer applies!_ Or rather, Occam's Razor _MUST_ factor in a valid observation. If something complicates the explanation, you only get to ignore it if it has zero effect or doesn't actually exist.

@johncothren603

2 жыл бұрын

You're not wrong.

@tenshimoon

2 жыл бұрын

Yes this. I've had dumb netizens try to argue and tell me I'm lying about actual experiences I personally lived through (or things I have firsthand knowledge of) **just** because "Occam's razor so therefore your experience can't be true and you're lying". So many people misunderstand and misapply it far too much.

I always saw Ockham's Razor more in the sense of "the theory that requires the least amount of assumptions is probably the correct one" not "the simplest answer is usually correct" to be honest. If your explaination as to why X happened is based on "if A,B and C happened it would cause X" vs "Y happened so when Z happened it caused X" the latter is probably right.

@revimfadli4666

2 жыл бұрын

Keyword: probably. It's a rule of thumb, unlike what those who treat it like a law(and replace 'probably' with 'must') would like to believe

@peterjohnson9438

2 жыл бұрын

I prefer the wording "when faced with multiple competing hyptheses, the one that makes the least assumptions should be preferred".

@MusingsFromTheJohn00

2 жыл бұрын

That is good, but Occam's Razor is a proposition meant to be a fundamental truth that when solving any problem, the probability of finding what it more likely to be true the "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity” which are included in and considered for that problem are included. It is does not mean the simplest or least answer is correct, but instead it is a foundational system of behavior, a chain of reasoning, that whatever the problem is, one should not include unnecessary complications, unnecessary data, unnecessary variables, etc. If you leave out a required piece because you are trying to simplify things it could result in an incorrect answer, thus while not including unnecessary things you need to include all necessary things.

@stephenbarlow2493

2 жыл бұрын

You are entirely correct, that is how it is widely used in science for hypothesis generation. The actual way William of Occam, or Ockham, formulated the concept, in what concept, is almost totally irrelevant. It's just a label for a thinking tool widely use in science. The everyday idea that it's about the simplest explanation, being the correct one, is a complete misconception of how it is used.

@HenryLoenwind

2 жыл бұрын

For me it is "the longer a chain of events must be to explain an outcome, the less likely it is that it happened". So if 10 things could have happened that each had a 90% chance, or a single thing could have happened that had a 40% chance, the latter is more probable.

This was an extremely good synopsis of William of Occam and a great explication of teleology (without ever using that word). Thanks for that. The "multiplication of entities" specifically referred to using a set of supernatural causes for what could just as easily explained by natural causes and so it was more a theological/philosophical tool, rather than a scientific or debating tool. You did an excellent job of showing how complexity can increase with each better theory in the discussion of gravity. As such, I would never appeal to "Occam's Rasor" without using the phrase "unnecessary complexity" with the emphasis on unnecessary. That normally unused qualification is important and very helpful in showing why many conspiracy theories can be relatively easily called into question.

My father said it simply when I was young, and it stuck with me: “There is beauty to simplicity.”

Just like everything else, it's situational. Nuance is more important than any go-to philosophy for problem solving.

@wordupninja

2 жыл бұрын

But Marxism

@doomgoblin9061

2 жыл бұрын

I agree.

@mikebar42

2 жыл бұрын

@@wordupninja what about it?

@notcrediblesolipsism3851

2 жыл бұрын

@@mikebar42 he was a failure and it always fails.

@Neoentrophy

2 жыл бұрын

I agree, it's a rule of thumb rather than a fundamental law of the universe. In most situations it probably is the most obvious solution that's the most effective, but that doesn't mean that outliers don't exist

Simon's beard is basically a co-presenter at this point! 😄

@manaash4316

2 жыл бұрын

I watched an older video of his where he was beardless and it made me super uncomfortable 🤣

@acelucas1627

2 жыл бұрын

Who's Simon......I know only beard

@Mayor_Of_Eureka17

2 жыл бұрын

Bro, it's been one for over a year now.lol

@TheFarCobra

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, but he claim it as a dependent for tax purposes?

@xerothedarkstar

2 жыл бұрын

@@manaash4316 word. Shaved Simon looks like a house elf.

The key to the correct modern usage of Ockham's Razor is "makes the fewest assumptions" which is not equal to simplest. An idea or solution can be quite complex but make very few assumptions, such as various concepts in quantum mechanics. On the other hand, some concepts can be quite simple but make a great many assumptions, such as claims pertaining to the supernatural. When people state it as "the simplest solution" it's a red flag indicating they're either misunderstanding or misusing it.

I think people need to realize two things about Occam’s Razor. 1.) it’s not “the simplest argument is most often right”, it’s “Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity”. In other words, “the argument which makes the least amount of unnecessary assumptions is usually right”, or as Simon put it “all things being equal, the simplest argument is often correct.” That’s an important distinction. 2.) even the rule is not an absolute. Even in its popular paraphrase, we say that the simpler argument is USUALLY right. Not ALWAYS right. When these are taken into account, Occam’s Razor is totally valid.

My anti razor being: "The more you study something the more complicated it becomes." More of a counter to the common usage of Occam's razor than the actual razor itself but still.

@ROMAQHICKS

2 жыл бұрын

Could be the Dunning-Krueger's Blunt Object. The more you know about an topic the more you realise you don't actually know that much.

@aick

2 жыл бұрын

Your anti-Occam's Razor is Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems? That doesn't work out the way you think it does, mathematically speaking.

@mrjones2721

2 жыл бұрын

I find that there’s a sine wave of apparent simplicity. The more you study something, the more complicated it becomes, until you reach a point where all the smaller moving parts coalesce into larger, simpler movements. You become so familiar with the complexity that it stops feeling complex.

@aick

2 жыл бұрын

@@mrjones2721 Proofs of complex mechanisms in mathematics and Physics will always express and create more complexity, that's the fractal nature of the universe. Incompleteness theorems, Kurt Godel. You can feel as familiar as you like, it doesn't make it any less complex, quite the opposite in fact. We'd say that's 90% of the joy of mathematics.

@aick

2 жыл бұрын

@@mrjones2721 So yeah, a sine wave, definitely ebbs and flows of familiarity, good metaphor!

8:45 That’s the Heliocentric model, Simon - Helios being the Greek god of the sun…

Love your videos. Whatever they’re about I think they are excellent food for thought and good reminders of the important notion: be skeptical and keep learning - in a curious yet humble way. Thank you. Furthermore, it is a true treat to be able to listen to such perfect English being spoken. 👏

The best formulation of the razor I’ve seen is that “between two explanations with equal predictive power, the one that requires the fewest new assumptions is to be preferred.” Occam’s razor doesn’t rescue a simple explanation full of assumptions, nor does it eliminate a very complex explanation that explains and predicts a phenomenon more accurately.

Generally speaking, when someone brings up Ockham's razor in a discussion, it suggests to me that he is unversed in both the subject at hand... and Ockham's razor. As a methodology, however, it's very useful. Test the simplest hypothesis first. In less-pompous circumstances, that's known as going after the low-hanging fruit.

@gecko8948

2 жыл бұрын

Usually when I've encountered people using ockham's razor they have no idea what they're talking about. It has turned into a stupid buzzword on the Internet. It's very frustrating to see it being used to justify creationism or conspiracy theories.

@kennethmiller2333

2 жыл бұрын

@@gecko8948 I've just as often seen it used to oppose creationism and as an attempt to debunk actual conspiracies.

@gecko8948

2 жыл бұрын

@@kennethmiller2333 it can be used as both in a simplified form, because people don't actually understand what they're parroting typically, even if they've got good intentions. It can be used to argue for either.

@carolthedabbler2105

2 жыл бұрын

One reason why Occam's Razor is so often misapplied is that it's so often misquoted. Even this video did not explicitly specify the necessary proviso: The simplest explanation which explains all the details (not just the convenient ones).

@kennethmiller2333

2 жыл бұрын

@@carolthedabbler2105 Can you really say it's misquoted when it was never really stated by Ockham, himself? How do we define the canonical form of it?

A more accurate statement of Ockham's razor is, "All things being equal, the simplest explanation *that accounts for all the relevant observatioal data* tends to be the correct one." Bastardizing it to simply "the simplest explanation tends to be correct" misses the entire point. In reality, "All objects with mass tend to fall towards each other, in direct proportion to their mass" *IS* the simplest explanation. Just because people don't understand *why* doesn't actually make it complicated.

@johnbradley1139

2 жыл бұрын

Disprovability is the key to scientific inquiry, to be sure. But OR frequently gets weaponized by people who mistake familiarity for simplicity. Gravity, for example. "All celestial bodies fall towards each other in proportion to their mass, and in accord with basic laws of motion" is simple. "Sometimes stars go backward because God does a whoopsie" is actually incredibly complex, and requires infinite "special case" explanations. But it's less threatening to human egos than accepting that we're not the center of Universe. That's not the same thing as "simple." Another great, if fictitious, example: In the movie Contact, at the end, James Woods mentions Ockham's Razor, and asks Jodie Foster, "What's more likely, that aliens beamed us a signal for a super-tech travel machine, or that John Hurt's eccentric billionaire pranked is all?" Then he leans back with a smug, "gotcha" smile. But OR doesn't ask what's "more likely." It asks what's simpler. And spoofing an interstellar signal would be hopelessly complex. One of the ways radio telescopes and arrays work is that they determine distance by triangulating from different places around the globe. And something in a near-Earth orbit would never be mistaken for a signal from 20+ light years away. In fact, Ockham's Razor *always* argues against conspiracy theories, because the conspiracy is always more complex than things simply being what they appear to be. And while some conspiracy theories turn out to be true (our government, all governments for that matter, have done shady, illegal shit), the number that end up being true, versus the number that get dreamt up every hour, are vanishingly small. Thank you for coming to my TEDTalk on why Ockham's Razor is still relevant in the modern worls.

Bravo! Excellent explanation of how and when applying Ockham's Razor is most appropriate. My son is studying CSI in middle school. I shared your video with him.

Thank you, Simon, this was enlightening. It also helped with a decision I'm facing.

Definitely one of the best written pieces you've ever been given to deliver. Informative, balanced, eternally relevant.

Correction: Heliocentric rather than "geocentric" model of the solar system. 8:41 or exactly at 8:50 - Love the accuracy and effort put into these great videos, so please keep up the great work. ; ) @TodayIFoundOut

@owenshebbeare2999

2 жыл бұрын

Blame the researchers, scriptwriters and editors.

@niccolom

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah I caught that too. I'm surprised no one at the filming caught that...

@felis1977

2 жыл бұрын

It was a good take and rather then repeat it they probably thought "Eh, none of the millions of people likely to watch this will probably notice" ;)

@barrydysert2974

2 жыл бұрын

!:-)

@Magmafrost13

2 жыл бұрын

@@niccolom Simon is the only one "at the filming". He just sits down in front of a camera and reads a script. And as he's mentioned numerous times on Business Blaze, he's pretty zoned out for the process and doesnt really internalize anything he's saying

While not as fundamental I always enjoyed Hanlon's razor. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." I can't help but think about it every time someone says "assume good intent".

Perfect length and placement for the native ad. I started the video and put my phone in my pocket. By the time I fumbled it back out to slip through the ad, the ad was complete. I got the gist. Go to square space for square things for your space. And now a nice video!!! Later ✌️

Fun new game: Count all the different ways YT's subtitles attempt to spell 'Ockham'.

The interesting thing about Copernicus' theory was that it was too perfect to be true. Using exact circles to describe the motion of the planets around the sun, while aesthetically pleasing, resulted in predictions no more accurate (if even that) than Ptolemy's epicycles. Johannes Kepler wrestled with the "Mars problem" until he realized that the sun sits at the focus of an ellipse, not the center of a circle. To the extent that an ellipse is more complicated than a circle (more parameters are needed to describe it), it represents a failure of Ockham's razor. (To be fair, Kepler benefited from more accurate astronomical data, supplied by Tycho Brahe, than was available to Copernicus.)

@kevin_mitchell

2 жыл бұрын

Finally, I think I understand what Ockham's razor means now.

@dubsed

2 жыл бұрын

I would disagree that Kepler is more complex than Copernicus since the two theories do not predict to the same degree of accuracy. If you want to force Copernicus to work as well as Kepler, you would need to add additional correction factors to do so, resulting in it being more complex than an elipse.

@sydhenderson6753

9 ай бұрын

@@dubsed In fact, some people (if I remember, Tycho) added epicycles. Kepler didn't require them.

@dubsed

9 ай бұрын

@@sydhenderson6753 I don't know if epicycles were used for the solarcentric models to account for the differences between circular and elliptical orbits. I know they were used for the geocentric models to account for the apparent periodic backwards motion of planets relative to Earth. I think those still end up being circular though when you shift them to be solercentric.

@sydhenderson6753

9 ай бұрын

@@dubsed Not only did they, but Copernicus himself used epicycles in his model. Kepler finally made them unnecessary.

Thanks Simon for the in-depth explanation of Ockham's razor. Well done!

The way I learned Ockham's Razor was "That if you have eliminated all other possibilities than the simplest solutions is usually correct". However in science both the "Law of the Conservation of Energy" and the "Law of Equilibrium" predict all stable matter exits in the lowest energy state possible. In other words Ockham's Razor is a logic tool to use to guess at a solution when an empirical proof cannot be obtained.

I’ve literally never heard ockhams razor in the context of an argument. I’ve only ever heard it after coming to an obvious conclusion after exhausting all other possible answers. For example: “my computer isn’t working.” Ockhams razor dictates it’s likely just not plugged in, or it’s broken. So, if you spend hours checking the internal components, the fuses in the wall, and your internet, only to then discover that it simply wasn’t plugged in, that’s okhams razor

Can someone count to see how many times Simon has used Ockham's razor to determine the outcome of a Casual Criminalist script?

@Wapohead

2 жыл бұрын

Simon and Kerry King use Ockham's razor to get such a close shave on their respective noggins. Slayer!

@benweakley4004

2 жыл бұрын

I was actually here in the comments to say "Thank you" to Simon for making this video as he uses it so often and I wasn't sure the actual meaning/theory of it.

Occam's razor Occam's razor, Ockham's razor, Ocham's razor, also known as the principle of parsimony or the law of parsimony, is the problem-solving principle that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity", sometimes inaccurately paraphrased as "the simplest explanation is usually the best one." The idea is frequently attributed to English Franciscan friar William of Ockham, a scholastic philosopher and theologian, although he never used these words.

William of Occam turns up in Umberto Eco's "The Name of the Rose': "Stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus" "Yesterday's rose stands only in name, we hold only empty names." is the final line of the book. The title may also be an allusion to the nominalist position in the problem of universals, taken by William of Ockham. According to nominalism, universals are bare names: there is not a universal rose, only a bunch of particular flowers that we artificially singled out by naming them "roses".

I always thought of it as a probability assessment. The more probable something is, the more likely that's the answer. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck, not a tree.

@N.i.c.k.H

2 жыл бұрын

That's circular reasoning. How do you decide which of two theories is more probable? How is a Heliocentric galaxy more probable than a geocentric one?

@matthewrayner571

2 жыл бұрын

@@N.i.c.k.H The scientific method tells us that experimentation is the way to go. Prediction, and observation to see if your prediction comes true is a good indication that there is something to your theory. The heliocentric model predicted and explained all kinds of phenomena which the geocentric one couldn't.

@Gottaculat

2 жыл бұрын

@@N.i.c.k.H No, it's not circular reasoning. It's how one forms a hypothesis, which is the first thing you need to begin the scientific method. Or did you flunk your science classes? For example, if I see the math problem "(5x)²" and I know ahead of time that the value of x must be equal to or greater than 2 (learned from previous testing), I can immediately rule out the possibility of the result being a number less than 100. It's not circular logic to make that educated guess. It's in fact a good starting point to ensure you don't get the answer wrong, because if you end up with a number less than 100, you made a mistake. Of course, if the premise that x must be equal to or greater than 2 is wrong, then of course so will be the results. While there's no guarantee your premise is correct, if the premise has plenty of evidence to back up the premise, it's probably a correct premise. This is also why good science is challenged, such as through peer review. This is all high school education level stuff. It's not some super big secret or anything that only the "experts" can understand. You have to be able to make educated guesses at times, and Occam's Razor is merely a guide to aid in the guesswork. It's not the final step in finding a solution to a problem. It just aids in speeding up the scientific method. If both hypothesis seem to be of equal merit, you test the less convoluted one first. That's all it is.

@N.i.c.k.H

2 жыл бұрын

@@Gottaculat Read more. Write less. Deducing that something is totally impossible is not an "assessment of probability" and not a use of Occam's razor.

@N.i.c.k.H

2 жыл бұрын

@@matthewrayner571 You're missing my point entirely. If you consider Occam's razor to mean "pick the most probable" then it would be meaningless - Nobody ever picks the least probable (by their estimation - whatever that is). Occam's razor is a rule of thumb for guessing the relative probability of 2 options not the other way around.

Once or twice I've heard of "Ockham's razor" but never knew what it meant. Indeed, today I found out something new, so thank you :)

@aick

2 жыл бұрын

Pretty sure you've never heard of "Ockham's" razor, you probably have heard of Occam's Razor though, since that is what is being discussed we assume that's what you mean. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

@BewareTheLilyOfTheValley

2 жыл бұрын

@@aick Simon's title spells it "Ockham" (and if you believe that is incorrect, feel free to try to flag his attention to have it corrected, lol), but the spelling isn't my issue. Verbally, I have heard of "Ockham's/Occam's razor, but just never knew what it meant.

@QBCPerdition

2 жыл бұрын

@@BewareTheLilyOfTheValley Aick has his/her panties in a twist over different, acceptable spellings of Ockham. While Occam is the more common spelling, Ockham is the way the city William of Ockham is from is usually spelled, so it is also an acceptable spelling.

@BewareTheLilyOfTheValley

2 жыл бұрын

@@QBCPerdition I thank them for their assistance but it was admittedly a bit pedantic regarding the spelling, lol. Also, hello, Aick if you read this, no hard feelings :)

@LKnivesGaming

2 жыл бұрын

@@aick From your link: "Occam's razor, Ockham's razor, Ocham's razor (Latin: novacula Occami), also known as the principle of parsimony or the law of parsimony (Latin: lex parsimoniae)" Maybe you should have read your own link first?

One of life's little pleasures is taking a break from Simon's videos and coming to see how that beard is coming along

Occam's razor, Ockham's razor, Ocham's razor (Latin: novacula Occami), also known as the principle of parsimony or the law of parsimony (Latin: lex parsimoniae), is the problem-solving principle that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity", sometimes inaccurately paraphrased as "the simplest explanation is usually the best one." THANK YOU! Great Useful Informative video - as usual! Always Great Stuf. Peace & Health

If ockmans razor doesn't work, just call your opponent an idiot. This is an effective strategy in making them understand that you are right, no matter what crazy claims you have.

@niccolom

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah I do that to flat-Earthers and anti-vaxxers.

@mrjones2721

2 жыл бұрын

Or accuse them of bring an NPC and tell them to wake up. It’s highly persuasive.

@DoremiFasolatido1979

2 жыл бұрын

I mean, at some point that's inevitable. Even if you do have an absolutely airtight logical argument with demonstrable facts, if you're arguing with a serious cognitive disability or someone with serious mental health issues, your only options at the end are to just walk away. It's not necessary to call them an idiot, or crazy, but it does happen. Nobody's perfect.

@bishopchalik8561

2 жыл бұрын

For your consideration I would submit the idea of a “you’re mamas so fat” joke or a middle finger. These methods are far superior and, quite honestly, far more effective means of persuasion.

@jacob416

2 жыл бұрын

ahh you must be a common visitor of r/atheist xD

This video is of unrivalled quality. The enthusiasm delivered by Simon, the highly intelligent wording and fluidity of the writers, the pristine audio and video, plus the length and in-depth look into this topic are astounding. These channels that Whistle Boy is a part of are easily the best educational content on KZread. Well done, as always 🤟

@adamperryofficial

2 жыл бұрын

This comment has copy pasta energy

@blackm4niac

2 жыл бұрын

or as OGBBs would tell you. GIMME THE FACTS, FACT BOI!

@squeezypop1

2 жыл бұрын

@@adamperryofficial It was totally genuine though 😂

@squeezypop1

2 жыл бұрын

@@blackm4niac AM I RIGHT, PETER?!

Great video! Occam's razor seems to be good preliminary guide, when reviewing theories, just like statistics In general. But improbable Is totally different thing than impossible, and coversely probable is very different than inevitable. This is why I feel many popular theories and axioms, like simulation argument and Drake's equation, are nothing more than amusing thought experiments.

Ockam's razor states that your sudden influx of thousands of runtime errors is probably not due to thousands of deprecations of modules, but rather is more likely due to a misplaced semicolon preventing the proper execution of those modules. This is not always the case however, as sometimes the jump from 2.7.9 to 2.8.0 does deprecate everything, and suddenly you have to relearn everything you know about 3D modeling and python scripting. (Or just keep using 2.7)

Ptolemy: ...and thus, I invented Spirograph! As for Occam's razor: if available evidence more supports theory A rather than a convoluted theory B, then it stands that theory A is probably the correct answer. If more evidence is uncovered then that evaluation can be reconsidered.

It's valid, but only insofar as you understand type 1 and type 2 error as well. Also, if not covered in the vid, it's not the "simplest" explanation, it's the one that makes the fewest assumptions. Rather critical nuance.

love how this host opens up by asking if people used okhams razor to sound smart, and then he goes on to do everything in his way to sound extra smart.

Splendid video, this is the high-quality content we need! Also, it is a bit surprising that the sponsor was not one of those online shaving product companies ;)

It's valid. It's all about choosing explanations that are more likely to happen over those that are less likely. And if you criticize this comment, I will pick your spelling and grammar apart.

@mowm88

2 жыл бұрын

Its a gillette not a schick

@aatishbrian

2 жыл бұрын

*for a proper noun Or *for proper nouns

@goddam9925

2 жыл бұрын

Bully boy .!!

@christinemiddleton4476

2 жыл бұрын

Horror Habit: In the ‘form’ that it’s often quoted and thus misused, it’s bollocks! In your understanding of it, again, that’s bollocks. Respectfully,!🤣🤗

@wordupninja

2 жыл бұрын

“Naw, this, simply, is not, true” Shatner

Great video! I learned something new! Thank you!

Speaking as a philosophy teacher, the *real* wording of O's R is "do not multiply entities beyond necessity", which is to say that any explanation should strive to be as simple *as possible*. In popular discourse, people seem to misunderstand this and assume that a simple answer should always be preferred, but most simple answers have to miss out important details. A person might come to believe that all they need to do in order to lose weight and feel healthy is to eat better, which is a simple answer but not necessarily a correct one. Think of just how many other things a person will need to do in order to lose weight, such as getting more exercise and sleeping better. Alongside that, they will need motivation in order to start working towards their goal, and they may even have a body type that cannot easily lose weight. There are almost always complex factors that go into any accurate description of something, and simple answers shouldn't be trusted.

In Medicine the concept is very helpful in focusing one’s thinking about possible diagnoses. Usually it is phrased as “the most parsimonious explanation is most often correct.” There is general recognition that it is not always accurate, so you have another well-worn consideration when things don’t quite fit: “true, true and unrelated.” Sometimes it’s funny listening to shorthand exchanges between physicians rounding on patients and trying to narrow down differential diagnoses. Resident #1: Well, Occam’s Razor. Resident #2: But maybe, true, true and unrelated?

8:40 You meant to say heliocentric

@DrivermanO

2 жыл бұрын

I noticed that! He said geocentric, didn't he?

@SIGSEGV1337

2 жыл бұрын

@@DrivermanO ye lol

I like how the captions kept changing the spelling of Occham. It is an old name. Being old, it predates firm spelling conventions. Therefore, Arkham's name can be spelled differently. I expecially liked that capitalisation of the initial letter wasn't a hard rule when spelling put occam's name.

I kinda fell in love with your voice and hand manerisms. Oh, it was also a nice explanation

Can you do the history of The Thunderbirds? NOT the TV show, the airshow.....haha The aircraft are always evolving, the history is decades long, tragic and packed with unmatched skill entertaining millions. Thank you from Nellis AFB, home of The Thunderbirds!

@jliller

2 жыл бұрын

I thought you were asking about the mythical giant bird.

Personally I prefer Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." It got has practical uses... daily. Great video as always.

The closed captioning keeps saying "Arkham's Razor" and "william of Arkham" which makes it all so much funnier. or more terrifying.....

A version of Occam's Razor is Hanlon's Razor, “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.” I often use this when examining conspiracy theories.

I am familiar with Occam's Razor being that the simplest model that actually explains the relevant observable phenomena is the best one to use. An important note -- this version does not say that the simpler model is correct. Relativistic mechanics is more accurate than Newtonian. But for most projects here on the surface of the planet, it is better to use Newtonian.

@raykent3211

2 жыл бұрын

correct me if i'm wrong, but i think that when the orbital model of the atom was proposed...err, rutherford?.... he said it obviously could not be true but might be useful. All these years later it is still useful

@ozzyp97

2 жыл бұрын

@@raykent3211 Useful to communicate some introductory chemistry, maybe. The basics of atomic orbitals aren't very hard to understand though, and give a much better idea of how things actually work.

Occam's razor is very useful in the subject of evolution and across the creation of scientific theories as a whole. The more complicated and larger portion of assumptions that you have to make to put forth a theory, the less likely that theory is to be true. Thus, statistically it is very useful to come to a scientific conclusion but only if paired with the rigor of the scientific method.

@JoelReid

2 жыл бұрын

See, this is a problem. Making assumptions is good as long as you seek to prove those assumptions. By presuming a theory is wrong because you made multiple assumptions can result in the wrong result in itself. For example, there is a large amount of study in the area of epigenetic where people can pass experiences to their offspring, something that for a hundred years was dismissed as ridiculous, primarily because it made assumptions. We now have heaps of evidence that your experiences do directly impact your offspring genetically through epigenetics. Applying ockhams razor to this issue actually delayed the work on epigenetics by at least a few decades, with some scientists being heavily criticised in the 80s and 90s for suggesting such.

@cruros9084

2 жыл бұрын

@@JoelReid That is a fair point on the potential pitfalls of the thought process; however, I'd wonder if that is inevitable due to the limited amount of funding available for research and targeting what is most probable to yield results that are valuable. By taking the process of simplification and working bottom to top, some topics may be missed or delayed at the cost of a greater efficiency on the whole (ex. granting funds to research that is more likely to yield useful data at a higher likelihood). Furthermore, I wonder what influence social aspects of the scientific community may have on such a point, as it would be disadvantageous to challenge the norms of widely accepted theories, something that isn't by necessity an issue with Occam's razor so much as it is with how research is funded and the human social elements that influence the conversation around that research. Either way, good point and I agree that it is indeed something to be mindful of.

@matthewbardeen4821

2 жыл бұрын

@@JoelReid The way I like to think about it is that the hypothesis has to explain the data. Once it doesn't, then it's not useful. So epigenetics really started taking force once people started realizing that they couldn't explain the data and evidence using 'standard' genetic theory. This is akin to the example mentioned in the video - Newton's laws held out (and are generally still useful) until people started noticing things it just didn't/couldn't explain. This forced a re-examination of the theory and the development of general relativity. Ockam's razor for me is that the simplest hypothesis that explains the data is usually the best.

@JoelReid

2 жыл бұрын

​@@matthewbardeen4821 i may not have been clear: while hypothesis based upon occam's razor may be useful, that does not make them correct. In science we use theories that best explain things and have yet to be disproven... but that does nto make them correct, it simply makes them not yet disproven. People have to realise that absence of proof, or disproof, does not necassarily equal reality. You see this best in law where guilty and not guilty verdicts are statements of evidence supporting proof, not necassarily reality... science works quite similarly, but the difference is people tend to take science as gospel more than they do so with law.

Its more useful for compariaon or making decisions, occassionally. If there are two options, and one requires a lot of complications and one doesnt, its more likely the less complicated one is easiest and thus the one most people would use given the options.

IMHO this is an excellent description of Ockham's Razor; far better than I could give and I have a degree in Philosophy. I watched this vid with a certain dread that someone was go about to say the simplest theory is always the best which is plainly and demonstrably wrong. Great video. Thanks.

Razor + anti-Razor = Safety Razor?

Ockham’s Razor is a great philosophy to apply to many engineering problems. If you can achieve a solution with less complexity, there’s less that can go wrong which often leads to higher reliability.

Very well explained. Pretty much the only practical application of Occam's razor iz a situation where you have several hypotheses explaining some observed phenomenon equally well. It is usually easier to first try to devise an experiment with the potential to falsify the simplest one. Then, if it passes, try with the next one, until you reach the decisive experiment that will falsify all your hypotheses but one. So, it is just a matter of "economy". BTW, Mother Nature is under no obligation to make its laws simple, elegant or beautiful (although it often does). For example, Newton's laws of motion and of universal gravitation explain astronomical observations simply and elegantly compared to, say, flat Earth "theory", which has to invent new complications for every observation (and fails completely for some). So, here simplicity and elegance win. But then, as you pointed out, Einstein enters the scene with his complications (although, in principle, also elegant): without taking into account effects described by both special and general theories of relativity GPS satellites would not work. Sorry, Sir Isaac...

The actual phrasing of the principle of parsimony is : " _All things being _*_equal_* , the simplest explanation is the best." If there is _no way_ to distinguish between two hypothesis, then choose the simplest. If there is any way to distinguish between them by experiment, comparison, or some other form of further study, then _that_ is the best way to choose the better hypothesis.

It’s a bit off-point, but almost the entire video had each hemisphere of my brain battling the other. My inner ‘strict rationalist’ and my inner ‘admirer of the arts and humanities’ are very easy to entice into argument. I try to feed them both equally, so they usually end up fairly matched against one another.

@bryanbrett8943

2 жыл бұрын

You too !? Glad I'm not the only one. Lol

@raykent3211

2 жыл бұрын

your inner "strict rationalist" may have been misled by a certain kind of "scientific" propaganda which comes from naive people who would rather oversimplify by "citing" occams razor than actually think. There is so much glib hindsight about which explanation is more likely to be true from someone who knows 100 years later in history. Years of ai research have shown that it is impossible to evaluate proabilities for all possible outcomes of ordinary situations. We must act before the end of time, so the principle itself is nearly useless because we cannot meet the requirements for its application, "the simplest" is undefined and "the most probable" is incalculable in advance of acting. So dont lose sleep and dont apply occams razor to your art or you'll end up with sterile minimalism.

Next video: Is Logic Rational? *Sponsored by Google.*

Ockham's Razor is literally that the explanation with the fewest assumptions is most frequently going to be correct. That's it. It doesn't state "always". It doesn't even touch on complexity (though that often seems to be a valid correlate). So, essentially, it's a quick statement of the obvious, as every chance to be wrong (aka an assumption) increases the odds of an incorrect solution. It's intended as a shorthand method for identifying candidates for BS in order of how likely they are BS. Used properly, it can't actually lead you wrong. It's all about just quickly sorting in the order of likelihood for correct/incorrect. "Hey, this has a crap-ton of assumptions to get to that solution! Put it in the suspicious pile for evaluation," is literally the only correct use. If you throw it away because it has assumptions, you're using it wrong. If you sort in order of complexity intentionally, you're using it wrong (unless you are just not sure where assumptions are in play). "Entities are not to be multiplied without necessity" is the most common Latin translation. Entities, in this case, usually referred to assumptions. Since then it became "steps".

@melly2094

8 ай бұрын

Yes, great comment, I found it strange that the video kept talking about simple/complex and not on the number of assumptions, which is what the razor is all about. It's a shame, because it's a serious misconception of occam's razor. Certain arguments may be more sophisticated and complex than simplistic explanations, but occam's razor tells us that they are probably correct because they don't have all the chain of loose assumptions as the simplistic explanation. That's it. No point talking about simple/complex. For example, the horses and zebras. It's not that it's just simpler to assume it's horses. The occam's razor here is not "it's simpler to assume it's horses". The real occam's razor in this case is: what's the thought process if I assume it's a horse? There are horses in this place - if I hear the noise, it's probably a horse. However, could it be a zebra? What would it take for it to be a zebra? There are no zebras occurring naturally here. So either someone imported a zebra and let it loose, or the zebra escaped the zoo. Therefore, assuming it's a zebra has too many far fetched assumptions. Therefore, it's probably a horse. The main question is: what would it take for the explanation to be (insert here)? And check the number of steps and how likely or unlikely they are. That's why simplistic explanations often fail occam's razor: you have to assume there are a myriad of exceptions. Which is one more reason to avoid using the word "simple" when speaking of occam's razor. I hope they remake this video one day and scrap this one. Still, I'm a big fan of the Simonverse, don't get me wrong.

As a retired career troubleshooter, I view Ockham's razor as a dull axe. There are things it is helpful for - primarily looking for a starting point when there are no unusual aspects or no time to learn more - but it is crucial to be ready to abandon that in an instant. If you are driving with a broken gas gauge and the engine quits, we expect that to mean we ran out of gas. Yet, the same factors that lead to living with a broken gas gauge work to make the entire vehicle likely to be poorly maintained. It can also be a random failure, like failed ignition module or fuel pump or... well, putting gas in the vehicle ain't part of a path to a brighter future. Devotion to "the usual" can be disastrous. A loved one started experiencing shortness of breath and a squeezing sensation below her left shoulder when trying to walk across the living room. She was a nurse, her nurse best friend was present, and I am a first aider. We all agreed these are cardiac symptoms. Her doctor said, "I know it's asthma but you're not wheezing." That diagnosis shut down all future paths there so she went to the ER where it was determined to be not a heart attack but obviously cardiac, so she got a referral to bypass the three month wait list. The cardiologist said it was what everybody but the doctor knew, and three stents fixed the problem. "Ockham's Razor" is a fine example of confirmation bias.

It’s a very simple practice in testing your logic! Don’t compound variables that should not be compounded! The Simple answer is typically the most common to be correct

@hardrays

2 жыл бұрын

this is how religions start. word...

By the way it is used, Occams Razor says: "If you say what you believe is simple, that automatically means you are right and everyone else is wrong."

@swolepp

2 жыл бұрын

The hypocrisy hypothesis with the least amount of assumptions is usually the correct one.

This was great. Really enjoyed it.

I fucking love this man and how much not only he grinds, but how much he teaches and how much he cares about everything from his sponsors to his viewers. An absolute legend

@NinjaBearFilms

8 ай бұрын

He’s just a script reader for hire. In fact he frequently “breaks” and laughs when he reads something that is accurate but contradictory to public opinion that he’s always accepted as true. He is also very upfront about that being the case. If you write an educational essay, you to can pay him to read it in front of a green screen so you can make your own Simon videos.

I've always preferred Bertrand Russell's interpretation of Occam's razor: "Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities."

@MusingsFromTheJohn00

2 жыл бұрын

But, that is not Occam's Razor. Occam's razor is a proposition meant to be a fundamental truth that when solving any problem, the probability of finding what it more likely to be true the "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity” which are included in and considered for that problem are included. It is does not mean the simplest or least answer is correct, but instead it is a foundational system of behavior, a chain of reasoning, that whatever the problem is, one should not include unnecessary complications, unnecessary data, unnecessary variables, etc.

@LaughingSeraphim

2 жыл бұрын

I appreciate that a great deal. How did you come across this gem?

@MusingsFromTheJohn00

2 жыл бұрын

@@LaughingSeraphim by thinking it meant "the simplest explanation is usually the best one" and then actually reading about it because someone said I was wrong... and I was, so I learned what it really meant. The actual meaning I find much better.

@Alacritous

2 жыл бұрын

@@MusingsFromTheJohn00 that's what it says.

@Alacritous

2 жыл бұрын

@@LaughingSeraphim just in my wandering around the web.

I think it applies best to theories that are essentially impossible to disprove, with that being mostly in the religious and spiritual side that have no supporting evidence.

The gravity example is an interesting one. I would say Occam’s razor holds if you think of it as “The simplest explanation that explains the phenomena” because if it doesn’t explain the phenomena, it can not be true.

The best advive i ever heard was "remember, its a logical device, not a solution. Youre supposed to use it, logically, to FIND solutions, not replace them"