Looking at the list of razors, it seems quite a few are defining which truth is simple and should be assumed rather than a different option. Be it conversational implication over semantic context, or stupidity over malice, etc.

Once the simple truth has been defined, shouldn't it fall under the Occam's razor? Are many of these razors simply pointing out a specific idea, but in reality not a new razor, but simply a subset of Occam?

  • I'm not sure I follow. Was I supposed to change my razor before shaving?
    – Mitch
    Dec 8 '16 at 16:34
  • @jobermark I'm sorry for accusation. The problem with all these razors is that they are sometimes dead wrong.
    – user6591
    Dec 8 '16 at 18:54
  • Also sorry for the reaction. (I am not calm today, and should probably not have started an exchange.) I will put back the answer, and refrain from further comments. Whether these are correct or not, is not part of what you are asking here. Each obviously has its own context, and folks dispute the underlying theories. But if you want to ask about their correctness, I am sure devotees and critics of their respective sources would happily comment on the reasons for each of them if it were asked as a specific question.
    – user9166
    Dec 8 '16 at 18:59
  • You seem to think of "Occam's razor" as something like "the simplest solution is the right one". While this is commonly repeated it is not Ockham's formulation, and it is vacuous without independent characterization of "simple". Ockham's was "do not multiply entities without necessity", so "simple" was "having the least number of entities". Other razors give other contexts where "simple" can be made sense of, but it is that which makes them substantive, the vacuous headline is no more substantive than A=A.
    – Conifold
    Dec 8 '16 at 20:00

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.