I hear people quote Ockham’s Razor incorrectly nearly every single time it is offered. I too used to hold a fundamental misunderstanding of this principle. What most people regurgitate is something along these lines:
The simplest explanation is usually the best one. –Incorrect
When you and I agree that the simplest answer is the best answer, we’ve embraced laziness. Yes, it could be true that the simplest is the correct answer, but we shouldn’t attribute such a notion to Ockham. He appears to have been a very decent man, and that notion IS NOT what he offered the world for consideration. Ockham’s Razor, otherwise known as the principle (or law) of parsimony, is a core problem-solving principle. I’m still not clear on whether this English-Franciscan friar actually wrote those words or spoke them. But they’re attributed to him nonetheless. Ockham used the principle of parsimony routinely in both his philosophy and Theology. Here is the proper Ockham’s Razor:
Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. -William of Ockham (1287-1347)
So what is the difference and why do I care, right? To say the simplest explanation tends to be the best, is not only lazy, but ‘best’ by whose definition? Instead, what Ockham used daily was the idea that making things unnecessarily complex would likely skew or alter the natural outcome. What Ockham was saying, simply put, is not that we need to search for the simple answer, but rather, that we should avoid making things complex when it isn’t necessary. When we dissect things like firearm ownership, gun control, and the like, it tends to get complex, and quickly. But it hadn’t ought to.
What we need is to remember Ockham’s Razor correctly, and put it into practice for our Second Amendment argument. Each time people propose gun control, they have reasons for doing so. Some are well-intentioned, some are silly. Regardless, they don’t apply to you and me. Why? Because we, the overwhelming law-abiding majority, aren’t misusing self-defense tools. We aren’t breaking the law. So why restrict ONLY the people who are adhering to the law? Doesn’t that sound complex to you? It should because it is. Keep our thoughts and arguments simple. Don’t make them complex when they don’t need to be.
If a freedom-hater rolls up to hound you about a crazy person who might get a gun if “gun control” isn’t implemented, what does that have to do with you or me? You and I aren’t bad actors, right? Then, why are we forced to pay for the iniquities of others? Why are we defaulting to group punishment veiled as law? And, oh by the way, if there is a crazy person with access to a gun out there, why am I denied a self-defense tool when the freedom haters just made the point that we need it? Apply Ockham’s Razor often, avoid making things complex, and offer the truth.
In Liberty,
Michael Ware – IFC
“Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity” in today’s meanings and language seems to converse along the lines of, well, let’s quickly check the FREE DICTIONARY on the internet –
n. pl. en·ti·ties
1. Something that exists as a particular and discrete unit: Persons and corporations are equivalent entities under the law.
And I must say that most people understand “entities” as little gray people that fly UFO’s around this big rock called “earth”. So it is understandable if they get Ockham’s Razor, wrong.
When I attended the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy at Camp Dodge military area/base, my class, the 60th Basic (back before there was actual DIRT – LOL), it was explained as “all things being equal, the simplest answer is most likely the correct answer.”
ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL – meaning, don’t start with the “what if’s” because it will only confuse the outcome…
THE SIMPLEST ANSWER IS MOST LIKELY THE CORRECT ANSWER – meaning it is NOT the simplest answer (so you stop there), you may have to explore other avenues, without adding more to the problem, and you may find there are more than one or two answers that could be the correct one…THIS is where the “most likely” comes into play.
Unfortunately, “the truth”, I don’t believe, has nothing to do with Ockham’s Razor, it is simply research and “trying” to find an answer, not neccessarily the truth, but the overall best “explanation” without adding things/what-ifs, and using assiduity, it is the best solution to a given problem/scenario.
That’s my 2 cents, it might even turn out to be even less than 2 cents worth 😉
I’m sorry Kerry, but you missed the points completely. When we seek the context associated with something given in a former time period, we need to take it into account based on what was intended THEN, not how we’ve abused it recently. Case in point – would you rather embrace the Second Amendment the way it was intended in full context by the framers or Barack Obama’s version in the ‘living breathing document’ sense? 😉
The “Truth” has everything to do with Ockham’s Razor. He, you, me, etc. should be applying the principle of parsimony properly. And considering Ockham was supremely interested in “Truth” universally, as a Theologian and Scholar, it truly goes to the heart of the matter. Read up on William of Ockham and it’ll become clear.