Ockham's Razor is a maxim. Maxims are succinct principles or rules that are used to guide actions. The razor guides us to prefer the theory (or theories) that posit(s) the least total number of entities while satisfactorily explaining the phenomena in question over theories that explain the same phenomenon but posit more entities. As the razor's Wikipedia article says:
The razor asserts that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded > for greater explanatory power.
Let's look at your examples to see how this bears out. You say:
if I have two hypotheses A and B with equal evidence, the razor would have me pick the
The razor hasn't been appropriately deployed here. Where you say "simpler one" you really mean that the razor would have you pick between hypotheses A and B in virtue of the number of explanatory posits they individually put forth. Specifically, if there are more explanatory posits in A than in B, and A and B both satisfactorily explain all of the relevant observations, then B is simpler than A.
But personally in my mind, I create a sort of credence-distribution
over the two hypotheses and hold the resulting distribution as my
I'm going to try not to step on any toes here. No matter how you slice it, the content of your belief is almost undoubtedly not the "resulting distribution" of a "credence-distribution over the two hypotheses." It's easy to see why it can't be: when someone asks you if you believe A or B, your answer will never be "the resulting distribution of a credence-distribution over the two hypotheses." That may describe how you came to hold the belief you hold, but that process is not the content of that belief.
This can put us into some really interesting situations. For example, maybe you consider the > hypothesis of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to have credence zero (and all other god
hypotheses). But because there are an infinite number of possible hypothesis, it's possible > that when you integrate over their credences you get a non-zero credence. Then, your belief > in god would be a credence-distribution over all possible beliefs in god.
Here you've given some great examples of when to use Ockham's Razor because you've invoked explanatory posits that unduly complicate a reasonable analysis of the applicability of Ockham's Razor.
Questioning Ockham's Razor means questioning the role of theoretical simplicity and the number of proffered explanatory posits. The only problems you bring up with the razor are borne of "credence distributions." What exactly are credence distributions? No matter what your answer is, they will also be explanatory posits of your theory. By definition, more explanatory posits makes your theory more complicated. In principle there's no reason you can't bring new explanatory posits into a theory, but as the Ockham's Razor wikipedia article says, they must offer some explanatory power. Including "credence distributions" in your theory doesn't seem to explain any more than a theory without them, and in fact seems to create problems where there were none.
Are there philosophers who think this way?
I would be extremely surprised if there were philosophers who think this way.