Occam’s Razor is limited to viable conclusions. Given the evidence at hand, the simplest answer is usually the correct one. But, that excludes answers that start in contradiction to the evidence.
Now that I'm at a proper keyboard, I'll elaborate just a bit more.
Suppose you were looking at the problem 254+108*3. Simple arithmetic, answer is 578. But, "4" is a simpler answer than "578," is it not? One digit, not three, one syllable, not seven. If Occam worked that way, we'd simply make up the easiest thing and say "this is it."
However, that's not what Occam's Razor actually tells us to do.
"Occam's razor is a principle of theory construction or evaluation according to which, other things equal, explanations that posit fewer entities, or fewer kinds of entities, are to be preferred to explanations that posit more."
In other words, take the straightest line, with the fewest suppositions necessary. If you're in North America and you see an equine shadow, Occam tells us to expect a horse, not a zebra. You shouldn't start in with "perhaps this is an African game reserve" or "perhaps the landowner is an exotic animal collector" absent evidence. But, you shouldn't ignore the evidence you have, either. You see an equine shadow, you don't say "ostrich" either.
I don't see the attraction living on either coast. I've heard the argument - "things to do" etc. But who can afford "things to do" after paying for food, housing, transportation/parking? And then there's the rampant crime and political corruption. Those of us in flyover country have a word for places like that: hellhole. Trump had a term for Third World countries that would apply there as well.
I grew up in NYC, and but for college, lived my entire life in the metro area. Yes, taxes are high. Yes, local government is noxious. But, that's not all there is in life, and there are countless things I like about it.
I won't try to make a comparative assessment of here vs "flyover country," because a - I haven't lived in the latter in a fashion that'd give me a real sense of it (though our upstate NY house is in its equivalent, I'd say), and b - there are just too many subjective components. Just one: as I get older, it is less of an issue, but I've been in countless places where things just shut down by 9 or 10 PM. Back in the day, we'd be out till 3 on the weekends.
Reading my first post as a paid subscriber.
Thank you VERY much for your support!
I normally wouldn't comment just to say such a thing, but I'm quite happy about it! Cheers, Peter.
Great column - as usual - and I am so very grateful that I live far, far away from NYC!
That last line really nailed it! Well done
Peter, help me out with something. The meme in your post (and Mencken's quote) seem to be at odds with Occam's Razor. Am I missing something?
Occam’s Razor is limited to viable conclusions. Given the evidence at hand, the simplest answer is usually the correct one. But, that excludes answers that start in contradiction to the evidence.
Now that I'm at a proper keyboard, I'll elaborate just a bit more.
Suppose you were looking at the problem 254+108*3. Simple arithmetic, answer is 578. But, "4" is a simpler answer than "578," is it not? One digit, not three, one syllable, not seven. If Occam worked that way, we'd simply make up the easiest thing and say "this is it."
However, that's not what Occam's Razor actually tells us to do.
"Occam's razor is a principle of theory construction or evaluation according to which, other things equal, explanations that posit fewer entities, or fewer kinds of entities, are to be preferred to explanations that posit more."
In other words, take the straightest line, with the fewest suppositions necessary. If you're in North America and you see an equine shadow, Occam tells us to expect a horse, not a zebra. You shouldn't start in with "perhaps this is an African game reserve" or "perhaps the landowner is an exotic animal collector" absent evidence. But, you shouldn't ignore the evidence you have, either. You see an equine shadow, you don't say "ostrich" either.
Thanks, Peter. Makes sense. Now I can check off my "you learn something new every day" box for the day!
I don't see the attraction living on either coast. I've heard the argument - "things to do" etc. But who can afford "things to do" after paying for food, housing, transportation/parking? And then there's the rampant crime and political corruption. Those of us in flyover country have a word for places like that: hellhole. Trump had a term for Third World countries that would apply there as well.
I grew up in NYC, and but for college, lived my entire life in the metro area. Yes, taxes are high. Yes, local government is noxious. But, that's not all there is in life, and there are countless things I like about it.
I won't try to make a comparative assessment of here vs "flyover country," because a - I haven't lived in the latter in a fashion that'd give me a real sense of it (though our upstate NY house is in its equivalent, I'd say), and b - there are just too many subjective components. Just one: as I get older, it is less of an issue, but I've been in countless places where things just shut down by 9 or 10 PM. Back in the day, we'd be out till 3 on the weekends.