Occam's Razor (AKA "Law of Parsimony") has been established as a foundational principle of modern (or Western) philosophical and scientific thought. It states that:
Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.
Under that guideline, if one falls off a ladder, for example, the simplest (or the one making the fewest assumptions) interpretation of the event is that it was a user mistake by not setting it safely enough. On the completely opposite end of the spectrum of interpretations from the Razor would be, for example, that some supernatural forces (God?) punished the victim or some such highly assumptive theory. If those were the only two possible interpretations, it would be easy to pick the safer one. But should we exclude the possibility that someone purposely sabotaged him, causing him to fall, as a theory somewhere in between the above two?
However, phenomena in the world do occur for which the explanation is not quite the easiest one from the spectrum of possibilities. While I fundamentally agree with the Razor, in some ways I see it being interpreted as justifying intellectual laziness and complacency by discouraging investigation of less likely scenarios (now, this is my assumption, so please refute me if wrong).
My question is this: How can one venture into investigating less likely interpretations of a phenomenon than the simplest one yet remain compliant with the Razor? Or another way to ask would be how does the Razor reconcile with considering the less likely scenarios as viable?
Consider finding a body with a gun next to it. Under the Razor (as I understand it, so please again correct me if you find my understanding wrong), the simplest explanation is suicide. But could it be a murder? Would Occam's Razor in this case discourage investigation into this seemingly less likely scenario because just because it is less likely than suicide, under the same circumstances surrounding it?