International Baccalaureate

Theory of Knowledge Essay

Title:

“Seek simplicity, and distrust it” (Alfred North

Whitehead)
Is this always good advice for a knower?

Word Count: 1596

~1~
4.) “Seek simplicity, and distrust it” (Alfred North Whitehead)
Is this always good advice for a knower?

The search for a simple explanation, whether behind a scientific theory,

mathematical equation or historical event, does seem a reasonable one. It would
be logical to assume that something appears complex because underneath are
many different components or factors that will fundamentally affect the way the
issue will be perceived and hence trusted. It would also be logical to suppose
that a simple solution or component might be at the heart of every complex
matter which is built upon forming a more complicated structure – an example
being the construction of a house. A house starts at humble beginnings as a pile
of bricks and cement, but once foundations are made and built upon then a
whole maze of rooms can be built and filled. For the house to be fully appreciated
in all its construction, its components have to be acknowledged and understood.
Therefore, something complex takes much understanding of inherent factors to
reach a thorough explanation.

However, Whitehead seems to be suggesting that to seek a simple solution to a

problem is a reasonable objective, but the solution reached through doing this,
should not be trusted as dependable. Then through doubting what seems to be
the simplest explanation, a clearer and possibly more truthful understanding can
be found. It seems to extend Occam’s razor of “All other things being equal, the
simplest solution tends to be the best one”1 but approaching this principle with
scientific scepticism. But as a knower, should I always follow Whitehead’s advice
and respond to all knowledge I gain with a degree of scepticism? Or is distrusting
knowledge more of a hindrance to my development than a benefit?

We love things to be simple. Simple things are easy to understand. They are
clearer and less confusing. So when it comes to revising for a test for example,
the simplest topics will be the easiest to learn. I find it helps me when revising to
break material down into simpler ‘bite-size chunks’, because it is easy to feel
over-faced by a complicated concept. Simplifying benefits us greatly here, but in
doing so our simplifications we can quite easily oversimplify which leads to
inaccuracies.

We often fall in love with our simplifications an example being idolatry, especially
in religion, where a one sided concept can dominate over millions of people. But
are people wrong in setting their hearts on what seems a fairly straight forward
religious concept they believe to be true? Well, “As beautiful as simplicity is, it
can become a tradition that stands in the way of exploration”2 and this does seem
to make sense. With simple solutions being appreciated more because they are
less ambiguous and more universally comprehensible, once one is derived, who
1
William of Ockham’s Razor – found at http://skepdic.com/occam.html (visited 18/11/08)
2
Quote from Laura Nyro (singer songwriter) – found at
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/l/laura_nyro.html (visited 10/11/08)

~2~
would want to complicate things by rejecting a perfectly plausible explanation but
which may not necessarily be true. And thus our knowledge development comes
to a standstill, due to a desire not to overcomplicate.

So, if we inhibit our development by simplification, then surely we should avoid it

particularly when investigating in science for example – or at least, we should
distrust the simplicity that we achieve. The scientific method follows a fairly
simple structure: an investigation begins by a large number of unbiased
observations being made on some aspect of the world. Then a theory is created
which attempts to explain the pattern of results - if it is a good one, it will explain
what is happening and what is likely to happen in the future. If the future results
don’t fit with the predictions though, the theory is then modified to deal with them.
This is considered the simple view of the scientific method, but despite this
method being simpler and well-founded, it fails to recognise the limitations that
exist in real life – the simple view assumes that we make observations without
previous knowledge and our expectations affecting them; an assumption that is
very rarely, if at all, accurate.

In Science we regularly generalise by assuming our theories will work in different

areas based on our observations, and there have been quite famous occasions
where the simplest answer has been achieved, trusted by scientists, but found to
be flawed later on; one huge example being atomic theory. John Dalton in the
early 19th century developed his theory that each chemical element was
composed of atoms that were the smallest and simplest components of all matter
and therefore were also unbreakable. It is unclear as to how he reached this
theory but when he used it, it allowed him to explain other new discoveries in
chemistry and it seemed very logical.

Although parts of his theory were altered by other scientists as time went on, the
main concept of atoms being the smallest particle of life was accepted until 1897
when J.J Thompson discovered subatomic particles whilst working with cathode
rays. However, even some of Thompson’s theories were disproved as scientific
investigation went on. In the pursuit of knowledge in science therefore it would
seem advisable to use Whitehead’s scepticism. Although when a theory is
discovered and there is enough evidence there to support it, if accepted by the
scientific community we generally count it as knowledge. So many theories over
the years have been updated or disproved with discovery of new knowledge.
Dalton looked for the simplest explanation for the composition of matter, but if he
was to distrust his explanation and investigate further, he might have discovered
the sub units of the atom that Thompson did to disprove his theory. However, by
Dalton not doing this, he allowed others to add the foundations of knowledge
which is probably more beneficial because we build on previous knowledge more
quickly and from fresh perspectives. And also, despite his theory later being
disproved, it worked in explaining many things – what we consider knowledge
now, may later be disproved too, but does that make it less useful to us in the
present day?

~3~
The biggest drawback with simplicity is when it becomes a tradition that prevents
further examination and understanding. Simplicity is often associated with beauty
possibly due to all the appeal it brings – its compactness and precision can be
seen to be elegance. Occam’s razor can be used to identify the simpler route
leading to correctness or convenience (as he avoids unnecessary over
complications) but also aesthetics, beauty and morals. This association has been
around for centuries when simplicity was thought to be linked to religion and
nature. Aristotle, an ancient Greek philosopher, associated simplicity with nature
and also truth and perfection stating that; "The more perfect nature is the fewer
means it requires for its operation."3 This of course is his personal aesthetic
beliefs and for many, simplicity, whether it leads us to truthful answers or not, is
preferred because its beauty can be admired straightforwardly.

However something aesthetically appealing will not always bring truth and that is
the problem with craving simplicity for its beauty. A mathematician making his
formulae and workings neat and arranged in an organised manner is justified in
doing so if it is for the sake of beauty or easy reading, but this does not mean the
equations are right are wrong. In the same way aesthetics is subjective, simplicity
is too – what is seen as being simple will differ between each person. Therefore
there is a problem in defining what simplicity actually is because perception is
affected by our different backgrounds and experiences.

“There is more to seeing than meets the eyeball”4. When we see something, or
make an observation, our knowledge and presumptions of what we will see, will
undoubtedly affect what we actually do see. For instance, if I was to open the
back of my watch, all I would see is a jumble of small pieces of metal and a
battery. Whereas, a watchmaker looking at the same watch would see patterns of
connections and cogs moving round and so forth. The watchmaker’s knowledge
in this area or background beliefs, hence affect his perception of what he sees.

Often when viewing art or listening to music, we may think it looks or sounds
simple but unless we are experienced in the area, we cannot appreciate the
effort required to reach that level of expertise – to make a very complex piece
with many underlying ideas appear simple, at least at surface value takes a lot of
skill. Being a musician myself and having had years of lessons to take me
through my flute grades, I can appreciate when listening to flautists a challenging
piece when I hear one based on things that I myself consider to be challenging
whilst playing; for example, complicated rhythms or especially higher notes that
require strange fingering patterns.

However, simplicity cannot be said to be better than complexity and vice versa. In
fact they quite often coexist in the way we can confuse them with each other -
simple methods may produce the most complex results. So perhaps seeking
3
Quote from Aristotle – found at http://www.cycleback.com/ockham.html
4
A quote from philosopher N.R Hanson (1924-67) – found from ‘Philosophy – The Basics’ (Fourth
Edition) by Nigel Warburton. Published by Routledge, 2004.

~4~
simplicity isn’t always the simplest route and instead if we looked for complexity,
we would consequently find simplicity – “simplicity does not precede complexity,
but follows it”5.

In conclusion, simplicity may be appealing, but it can also be deceptive – if we

are just to accept knowledge rather than searching for better explanations which
would complicate matters, we will stop progressing in our knowledge. Also,
because our perceptions of simplicity will vary, continuously searching for our
own knowledge rather than relying solely on that of others, will keep us exploring
and learning. Therefore Whitehead is valid in his advice to distrust the ‘simplicity’
achieved. Nevertheless, in doing so we must be wary not to reject knowledge just
because of its complicated nature – something complicated isn’t necessarily
wrong.

Bibliography

Books
o ‘Philosophy – The Basics’ (Fourth Edition) by Nigel Warburton.
Published 2004 by Routledge.

5
Quote from Alan J. Perlis – found at http://www.jbox.dk/quotations.htm (visited 19/11/08)

~5~
 o ‘Ways of Knowing – An introduction to the Theory of Knowledge’
(Second Edition) by Michael Woolman. Published 2006 by IBID Press.
o ‘The Zero Fallacy and Other Essays in Neoclassical Philosophy’ by
Charles Hartshorne, Mohammad Valady. Published 1997 by Open Court
Publishing.
o ‘Simplicity, Inference and Modelling’ by Arnold Zellner, Hugo A.
Keuzenkamp, Michael McAleer. Published 2001 by Cambridge University
Press.

Websites

o Ockham's Razor and the Principle of Simplicity -

http://www.cycleback.com/ockham.html
o Ockham's Razor - http://skepdic.com/occam.html
o Alfred North Whitehead - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whitehead/

~6~