A new paper highlights the significance of Occam’s Razor, arguing that its principle of simplicity is what sets science apart from pseudoscience and superstition. The study argues that a better understanding and emphasis on Occam’s Razor could improve public perception and education in science.
Occam’s Razor, a principle suggesting that the simplest explanation that aligns with the facts should be chosen when confronted with multiple hypotheses, is more than just a scientific tool. According to a distinguished molecular geneticist at the University of Surrey, Occam’s Razor is science.
In a paper published by Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Professor Johnjoe McFadden argues Occam’s razor – attributed to the Surrey-born, Franciscan friar, William of Occam (1285 – 1347) – is the only feature that differentiates science from superstition, pseudoscience or fake news.
Professor McFadden said: “What is science? The rise of issues such as vaccine hesitancy, climate skepticism, alternative medicine, and mysticism reveals significant levels of distrust or misunderstanding of science amongst the general public. The ongoing Covid inquiry also highlights how scientific ignorance extends into the heart of government. Part of the problem is that most people, even most scientists, have no clear idea of what science is actually about.”
Factors often cited as being the essence of science, such as experimentation or mathematics, are widely used in disciplines as diverse as gardening, accounting, cooking or astrology. Alchemists performed thousands of experiments attempting to transform base metal into gold but got nowhere, whereas astrologers used mathematics to calculate horoscopes. Neither is considered science. But why?
Historical Significance and Modern Application
William of Occam insisted that science is the search for the simplest solutions. Occam’s razor was adopted by Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton to, for example, argue that Earth orbits the sun, not the other way around, because it is simpler. They used the razor to clear a path through mysticism, superstition, and religion to found modern science. The razor continues to be invaluable, helping to predict, for example, the Higgs boson.
Professor McFadden continued: “Whereas practitioners of mysticism, alternative medicine, pseudoscience or fake news can invent spirits, demons conspiracies or Elvis on the moon, to make sense of their world, scientists will always adopt the simplest solution to even the most complex problems. That is the beauty of Occam’s razor.”
“While mysticism, alternative medicine, and fake news often resort to elaborate explanations like spirits or moon-landing conspiracies, scientists seek the simplest solutions to complex problems. Today’s world, riddled with pseudoscience and misinformation, partly stems from a poor grasp of science. Often taught as a jumble of obscure theories and complex equations, science can overwhelm students, driving them away. However, portraying science as a method to find simple explanations for our world’s complexities, using experimentation, mathematics, and logic, could make it accessible to all, including politicians.”
Reference: “Razor sharp: The role of Occam’s razor in science” by Johnjoe McFadden, 29 November 2023, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.
DOI: 10.1111/nyas.15086
This seems to be garbage. I was hoping for a philosophical argument. There is an argument for simplicity in science, but that isn’t particularly meaningful in isolation. I would argue sufficiency is more accurate (the necessitate of the razor), combined with explanatory power. Otherwise, “That’s just the way it is” is a much simpler hypothesis, and you’ll find it tests quite well.
I say the article is garbage, because it dismisses disparate things as if they are one silly type of thing. “The rise of issues such as vaccine hesitancy, climate skepticism, alternative medicine, and mysticism…fake news…pseudoscience…spirits, demons…conspiracies…”. Really? You’re going to classify skepticism along with pseudoscience? Skepticism is more of the actual basis of science than Occam’s Razor, which is an excellent rule of thumb, but insufficient, as sometimes reality has complexity. Alternative medicine is often simply non-corporation medicine, such as the willow bark versus aspirin. There are actual conspiracies, to the point where they are often illegal. Anyone who classifies hesitating to be injected with anything as similar to a belief in demonic ghosts needs more life experience.
The paper the article is based on is better, but it has the same issues. With its historical anecdotes combined with politics, it reminds me of first-year philosophy student essays, where the student has an encyclopedia, and an angsty collection of misunderstood concerns about the world they need to work out using the new philosophical tools they’re learning.
“Otherwise, “That’s just the way it is” is a much simpler hypothesis, and you’ll find it tests quite well.”
Indeed, and it is even a useful foil against the modern paradigm of anthropogenic global climate change, which requires that one suspend belief that while the wide range in temperatures in the geological past is sufficient to explain past ‘ice house’ and ‘hot house’ events, but find it necessary to invent a new explanation for a climate that is cooler than past events such as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. Natural variation is a better fit to Occam’s Razor than a claim that, despite poor model predictions and no decline in the rate of temperature increase during the COVID shutdown, ‘today’ is a special situation that requires the belief that only anthropogenic CO2 can explain our rising temperatures. If “pseudoscience” is characterized by special considerations, then it seems natural variation is a better fit to Occam’s Razor.
A good point. Climate Change arguments multiply entities; climate change is caused by natural variation, anthropogenic pollution, the release of phlogiston from burning fossil fuels, and a little green alien named Gazoo only I can see. The geological record shows natural variation, and anthropogenic change would be a first. Science actually can handle multiple factors, but if Occam’s Razor is to be the new basis of science, then forget other factors, as the natural explanation we’ve seen in the geological record of hothouse and icehouse Earth is sufficient to change climate.
“Factors often cited as being the essence of science, such as experimentation or mathematics, are widely used in disciplines as diverse as gardening, accounting, cooking or astrology.”
Perhaps one should be more precise in their definitions, and distinguish (or should I say differentiate) between calculus, algebra, statistics, and other branches of higher mathematics, from simple arithmetic.
I agree with ‘Hottan’ that skepticism — as in wanting unassailable proof — is an important difference between science, and astrology and superstition.
The best tool in the hands of a fool is useless at best; at worst, the results can be downright dangerous. It all rests on whether one has all the necessary data in order to come to the correct conclusion.
Unfortunately, many, including those who call themselves scientists, are unfamiliar with the “Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses” and don’t think outside of the paradigm box they live in. Thus, additional data may not be useful to them. It is the old story of the workman, whose only tool is a hammer, sees all problems as a nail that has to be hit.