Ockham's Dull Razor

Logic Times ^ | 5-21-06 | Dan Hallagan

[Logic Times]

William of Ockham would be baffled. The medieval thinker who popularized the idea that simplest explanations are usually the best would not know what to make of our immigration problem. On one hand, there is a fundamentally simple creature known as the "politician." It is true that the politician appears complex as the subtle pressures and influences of political life swirl beneath the surface producing inconsistent behavior that frustrates voters. But in the end, the politician is slave to one easily understood master: public opinion. If the public cries out with one voice that everyone should wear briefs and only briefs, then the politician would immediately introduce legislation outlawing boxers, attend boxer-burning rallies and be "caught" on film shopping for briefs at the local Wal-Mart – if his constituents liked Wal-Mart.

On the other hand, there is a fundamentally simple issue called "illegal immigration," an activity with no redeeming value. Some suggest that certain businesses rely on illegal immigrants, who will do the work that Americans won’t do. Yet that work force is already here; no business owner in the Southwest is so desperate for additional workers that he or she embraces the prospect of societal collapse just to maintain this supply. So the issue remains pleasingly simple in the eyes of William of Ockham: ongoing illegal immigration is entirely without value to American citizens.

The final ingredient in William’s simple stew is consensus. Everyone in the electorate wants illegal immigration stopped – and not "nice" stopped, but stopped in a big way, with walls and guards and deportations and rude gestures at Vicente Fox.

[Logic Times]

Not copied in its entirety because of links.

[Txsleuth]

Ping

[elkfersupper]

Thank you for posting this.

[Chuckster]

bttt

[Billthedrill]

The medieval thinker who popularized the idea that simplest explanations are usually the best...

That isn't what he said. Ockham said that "logical entities are not to be multiplied without necessity." The idea there was that when two theories proposed to explain the same set of facts, the one with fewer logical entities was to be considered first.

By no means does this mean that the best solution to a problem is the simplest one proposed. That's quite another thing. When one has a sick child one may either go through a lengthy process of diagnosis, treatment, and recovery, or one may simply shoot the little bugger and try again. Ockham's razor would be misapplied were it to be used to justify the latter. It isn't for that.

Just my opinion. Yes, it's pedantic and I apologize for that.

[canuck_conservative]

"But in the end, the politician is slave to one easily understood master: public opinion."

Not true!

Politicians can shape and influence public opinion too, if they can articulate good ideas. Theodore Roosevelt, for example, used his bully pulpit to good effect.

But nobody in Washington wants to LEAD on this issue - that's the real shame!!

[hosepipe]

Ex-freepin-actly..

[hosepipe]

[ Ockham's razor would be misapplied were it to be used to justify the latter. It isn't for that. ]

OR it can be used as a metaphor to explain things and processes the theory didn't address directly.. OR as a base for conversation about unknown matters..

[Billthedrill]

Certainly, especially the latter. But before we use it to try to decide which of our supposedly normative models is going to give us the desired result - and that's what policies are, normative models - we first have to make sure that the models we're comparing qualify as descriptive, and then predictive. Ockham's Razor is a wonderful tool in this analysis.

But when it comes to actually choosing between two normative models - policies - that purport to give the same results, it is less useful. There the policy will either produce the desired results or it will not, and it's too late by then, and a mistaken interpretation of Ockham, to state that a simpler set of constituent parts in the model will more likely attain the desired result.

By then all you can state is that if it is observed not to produce those results then the model that purports to be normative has failed and is merely descriptive. (That happened, IMHO, with Marxism, but that's another entire and very large discussion). And yes, that's hindsight.

But to turn the circle, I happen to agree with you that Ockham's Razor can be very useful to navigate a choice between descriptive models where there are a large number of unknowns. That is absolutely what it's for.

I just re-read this. Does it make any sense at all? I think I'm going to bed... ;-)

[hosepipe]

[ I just re-read this. Does it make any sense at all? I think I'm going to bed... ;-) ]

Hosepipes Law; If you have to refer ro Ockhams Razor, you're probably dealing with metalitys that will reject you're conclusion..

[GOPJ]

...kind of a "don't postulate beyond necessity" type of thing?

[dighton]

When one has a sick child one may either go through a lengthy process of diagnosis, treatment, and recovery, or one may simply shoot the little bugger and try again. Ockham's razor would be misapplied were it to be used to justify the latter.

Now he tells me.

[aculeus]

What ever became of Ockham's Toothbrush?