In response to David Blomstrom:
'For example, people will say "The conspiracy theory is more complex than the official narrative, therefore, we have to believe the politicians and the media."'
I think it's important to distinguish between using Occam's Razor with regard to the "story" and Occam's Razor with regard to "the evidence" and it's also helpful to analyse the term "conspiracy theory".
Conspiracy is a kind of crime and yet while no other type of crime is commonly collocated with the word "theory", conspiracy is almost always collocated with that word. The ubiquitous collocation tends to imply that conspiracies rarely occur and mostly only in the minds of "conspiracy theorists" which is massively propagandistic.
Scientists and similar who dispute the "story" told to us by the authorities do not claim in the first instance, a conspiracy, in fact, the term may not be involved in their argument at all. In the first instance, what they claim is a problem with the story told, they point out where the story doesn't add up.
I think in situations where the authorities are lying what is found is that Occam's Razor works perfectly fine on the actual evidence, it's only if used on the "story" that it may seem to fail but Occam's Razor is not interested in story, it's only interested in evidence.
In the interests of not getting too controversial I will refrain from citing an instance.
Captain Kenpachi says "If a hypothesis is insufficient to explain something, then Occam's razor does not apply. Occam's Razor does NOT say "oversimplify things".
Could not agree more. You can't apply OR where there is insufficient evidence to exclude most hypotheses. A person's recently-deposited DNA found on the sill of a forced window in a house where someone was murdered is simply not enough evidence to apply OR to charge that person with murder - too many other hypotheses are possible. The DNA is, however, sufficient evidence for OR to treat that person as a suspect ... until further evidence rules them out (eg, alibi) or better implicates someone else. If no further evidence is found I'm sure the law would consider there simply wasn't enough evidence to convict that person.
I also agree with Dan Emerson's quote from Wikipedia:
"The razor asserts that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power."
I think Occam's Razor is an excellent tool for situations where a reasonable amount of evidence exists (especially from different angles) which generally tends to limit the number of possible hypotheses to be considered, however, I've only used it really in a limited scope and I'm certainly not a philosopher. For all I know, perhaps I don't use it quite correctly. What I do know is that my mind tends to always be in the mode of "which hypothesis does the evidence favour with the fewest questions and assumptions raised".