7/8/2016

Occam'srazorWikipedia,thefreeencyclopedia

Occam'srazor
FromWikipedia,thefreeencyclopedia

Occam'srazor(alsowrittenasOckham'srazor,andlexparsimoniae
inLatin,whichmeanslawofparsimony)isaproblemsolving
principleattributedtoWilliamofOckham(c.12871347),whowasan
EnglishFranciscanfriarandscholasticphilosopherandtheologian.
TheprinciplecanbeinterpretedasstatingAmongcompeting
hypotheses,theonewiththefewestassumptionsshouldbeselected.
Inscience,Occam'srazorisusedasaheuristictechnique(discovery
tool)toguidescientistsinthedevelopmentoftheoreticalmodels,
ratherthanasanarbiterbetweenpublishedmodels.[1][2]Inthe
scientificmethod,Occam'srazorisnotconsideredanirrefutable
principleoflogicorascientificresultthepreferenceforsimplicityin
thescientificmethodisbasedonthefalsifiabilitycriterion.Foreach
acceptedexplanationofaphenomenon,theremaybeanextremely
large,perhapsevenincomprehensible,numberofpossibleandmore
complexalternatives,becauseonecanalwaysburdenfailing
explanationswithadhochypothesestopreventthemfrombeing
falsifiedtherefore,simplertheoriesarepreferabletomorecomplex
onesbecausetheyaremoretestable.[3][4][5]

Contents
1 History
1.1 FormulationsbeforeOckham
1.2 Ockham
1.3 Laterformulations
2 Justifications
2.1 Aesthetic
2.2 Empirical
2.2.1 Testingtherazor
2.3 Practicalconsiderationsandpragmatism
2.4 Mathematical
2.5 Otherphilosophers
2.5.1 KarlPopper
2.5.2 ElliottSober
2.5.3 RichardSwinburne
2.5.4 LudwigWittgenstein
3 Applications
3.1 Scienceandthescientificmethod
3.2 Biology
3.3 Medicine
3.4 Religion
3.5 Penalethics
3.6 Probabilitytheoryandstatistics
3.6.1 Objectiverazor
4 Controversialaspectsoftherazor
5 Antirazors
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

AndreasCellarius'sillustrationofthe
Copernicansystem,fromtheHarmonia
Macrocosmica(1660).Themotionsofthe
sun,moonandothersolarsystemplanets
canbecalculatedusingageocentricmodel
(theearthisatthecentre)orusinga
heliocentricmodel(thesunisatthe
centre).Bothwork,butthegeocentric
systemrequiresmanymoreassumptions
thantheheliocentricsystem,whichhas
onlyseven.Thiswaspointedoutina
prefacetoCopernicus'firsteditionofDe
revolutionibusorbiumcoelestium.

1/18

7/8/2016

Occam'srazorWikipedia,thefreeencyclopedia

5 Antirazors
6 Seealso
7 Notes
8 References
9 Furtherreading
10 Externallinks

History
ThetermOccam'srazorfirstappearedin1852intheworksofSirWilliamHamilton,9thBaronet(17881856),
centuriesafterWilliamofOckham'sdeathin1347.[6]Ockhamdidnotinventthis"razor"itsassociationwithhim
maybeduetothefrequencyandeffectivenesswithwhichheusedit.[7]Ockhamstatedtheprincipleinvarious
ways,butthemostpopularversion,"Entitiesmustnotbemultipliedbeyondnecessity"(Nonsuntmultiplicanda
entiasinenecessitate)wasformulatedbytheIrishFranciscanphilosopherJohnPunchinhis1639commentaryon
theworksofDunsScotus.[8]

FormulationsbeforeOckham
TheoriginsofwhathascometobeknownasOccam'srazoraretraceable
totheworksofearlierphilosopherssuchasJohnDunsScotus(1265
1308),RobertGrosseteste(11751253),Maimonides(MosesbenMaimon,
11381204),andevenAristotle(384322BC).[9][10]Aristotlewritesinhis
PosteriorAnalytics,"Wemayassumethesuperiorityceterisparibus[other
thingsbeingequal]ofthedemonstrationwhichderivesfromfewer
postulatesorhypotheses."[11]Ptolemy(c.AD90c.AD168)stated,"We
consideritagoodprincipletoexplainthephenomenabythesimplest
hypothesispossible."[12]

PartofapagefromDunsScotus'
bookOrdinatio:"Pluralitasnonest
ponendasinenecessitate",i.e.,
"Pluralityisnottobepositedwithout
necessity"

Phrasessuchas"Itisvaintodowithmorewhatcanbedonewithfewer"
and"Apluralityisnottobepositedwithoutnecessity"werecommonplacein13thcenturyscholasticwriting.[12]
RobertGrosseteste,inCommentaryon[Aristotle's]thePosteriorAnalyticsBooks(CommentariusinPosteriorum
AnalyticorumLibros)(c.12171220),declares:"Thatisbetterandmorevaluablewhichrequiresfewer,other
circumstancesbeingequal...Forifonethingweredemonstratedfrommanyandanotherthingfromfewerequally
knownpremises,clearlythatisbetterwhichisfromfewerbecauseitmakesusknowquickly,justasauniversal
demonstrationisbetterthanparticularbecauseitproducesknowledgefromfewerpremises.Similarlyinnatural
science,inmoralscience,andinmetaphysicsthebestisthatwhichneedsnopremisesandthebetterthatwhich
needsthefewer,othercircumstancesbeingequal."[13]TheSummaTheologicaofThomasAquinas(12251274)
statesthat"itissuperfluoustosupposethatwhatcanbeaccountedforbyafewprincipleshasbeenproducedby
many".AquinasusesthisprincipletoconstructanobjectiontoGod'sexistence,anobjectionthatheinturn
answersandrefutesgenerally(cf.quinqueviae),andspecifically,throughanargumentbasedoncausality.[14]
Hence,AquinasacknowledgestheprinciplethattodayisknownasOccam'srazor,butpreferscausalexplanations
toothersimpleexplanations(cf.alsoCorrelationdoesnotimplycausation).
TheIndianHinduphilosopherMadhva(12381317)inverse400ofhisVishnuTattvaNirnayasays:
"dvidhAkalpanekalpanAgauravamiti"("Tomaketwosuppositionswhenoneisenoughistoerrbywayof
excessivesupposition").

Ockham
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

2/18

7/8/2016

Occam'srazorWikipedia,thefreeencyclopedia

WilliamofOckham(circa12871347)wasanEnglishFranciscanfriarandtheologian,aninfluentialmedieval
philosopherandanominalist.Hispopularfameasagreatlogicianrestschieflyonthemaximattributedtohimand
knownasOckham'srazor.Thetermrazorreferstodistinguishingbetweentwohypotheseseitherby"shaving
away"unnecessaryassumptionsorcuttingaparttwosimilarconclusions.
WhileithasbeenclaimedthatOckham'srazorisnotfoundinanyofhiswritings,[15]onecancitestatementssuch
asNumquamponendaestpluralitassinenecessitate[Pluralitymustneverbepositedwithoutnecessity],which
occursinhistheologicalworkonthe'SentencesofPeterLombard'(Quaestionesetdecisionesinquattuorlibros
SententiarumPetriLombardi(ed.Lugd.,1495),i,dist.27,qu.2,K).
Nevertheless,theprecisewordssometimesattributedtoOckham,entianonsuntmultiplicandapraeter
necessitatem(entitiesmustnotbemultipliedbeyondnecessity),[16]areabsentinhisextantworks[17]this
particularphrasingcomesfromJohnPunch,[18]whodescribedtheprincipleasa"commonaxiom"(axioma
vulgare)oftheScholastics.[8]Ockham'scontributionseemstobetorestricttheoperationofthisprinciplein
matterspertainingtomiraclesandGod'spower:so,intheEucharist,apluralityofmiraclesispossible,simply
becauseitpleasesGod.[12]
Thisprincipleissometimesphrasedaspluralitasnonestponendasinenecessitate("pluralityshouldnotbeposited
withoutnecessity").[19]InhisSummaTotiusLogicae,i.12,Ockhamcitestheprincipleofeconomy,Frustrafitper
pluraquodpotestfieriperpauciora(Itisfutiletodowithmorethingsthatwhichcanbedonewithfewer").
(Thorburn,1918,pp.35253KnealeandKneale,1962,p.243.)

Laterformulations
ToquoteIsaacNewton,"Wearetoadmitnomorecausesofnaturalthingsthansuchasarebothtrueandsufficient
toexplaintheirappearances.Therefore,tothesamenaturaleffectswemust,asfaraspossible,assignthesame
causes."[20][21]
BertrandRusselloffersaparticularversionofOccam'srazor:"Wheneverpossible,substituteconstructionsoutof
knownentitiesforinferencestounknownentities."[22]
Around1960,RaySolomonofffoundedthetheoryofuniversalinductiveinference,thetheoryofpredictionbased
onobservationsforexample,predictingthenextsymbolbaseduponagivenseriesofsymbols.Theonly
assumptionisthattheenvironmentfollowssomeunknownbutcomputableprobabilitydistribution.Thistheoryis
amathematicalformalizationofOccam'srazor.[23][24][25]
AnothertechnicalapproachtoOccam'srazorisontologicalparsimony.[26]
Thewidespreadlayman'sformulationthat"thesimplestexplanationisusuallythecorrectone"appearstohave
beenderivedfromOccam'srazor.

Justifications
Beginninginthe20thcentury,epistemologicaljustificationsbasedoninduction,logic,pragmatism,andespecially
probabilitytheoryhavebecomemorepopularamongphilosophers.

Aesthetic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

3/18

7/8/2016

Occam'srazorWikipedia,thefreeencyclopedia

Priortothe20thcentury,itwasacommonlyheldbeliefthatnatureitselfwassimpleandthatsimplerhypotheses
aboutnaturewerethusmorelikelytobetrue.Thisnotionwasdeeplyrootedintheaestheticvaluethatsimplicity
holdsforhumanthoughtandthejustificationspresentedforitoftendrewfromtheology.ThomasAquinasmade
thisargumentinthe13thcentury,writing,"Ifathingcanbedoneadequatelybymeansofone,itissuperfluousto
doitbymeansofseveralforweobservethatnaturedoesnotemploytwoinstruments[if]onesuffices."[27]

Empirical
Occam'srazorhasgainedstrongempiricalsupportinhelpingtoconvergeonbettertheories(see"Applications"
sectionbelowforsomeexamples).
Intherelatedconceptofoverfitting,excessivelycomplexmodelsareaffectedbystatisticalnoise(aproblemalso
knownasthebiasvariancetradeoff),whereassimplermodelsmaycapturetheunderlyingstructurebetterand
maythushavebetterpredictiveperformance.Itis,however,oftendifficulttodeducewhichpartofthedataisnoise
(cf.modelselection,testset,minimumdescriptionlength,Bayesianinference,etc.).
Testingtherazor
Therazor'sstatementthat"otherthingsbeingequal,simplerexplanationsaregenerallybetterthanmorecomplex
ones"isamenabletoempiricaltesting.Anotherinterpretationoftherazor'sstatementwouldbethat"simpler
hypotheses(notconclusions,i.e.explanations)aregenerallybetterthanthecomplexones".Theproceduretotest
theformerinterpretationwouldcomparethetrackrecordsofsimpleandcomparativelycomplexexplanations.If
oneacceptsthefirstinterpretation,thevalidityofOccam'srazorasatoolwouldthenhavetoberejectedifthe
morecomplexexplanationsweremoreoftencorrectthanthelesscomplexones(whiletheconversewouldlend
supporttoitsuse).Ifthelatterinterpretationisaccepted,thevalidityofOccam'srazorasatoolcouldpossiblybe
acceptedifthesimplerhypothesesledtocorrectconclusionsmoreoftenthannot.
Inthehistoryofcompetinghypotheses,thesimplerhypotheseshaveledto
mathematicallyrigorousandempiricallyverifiabletheories.Inthehistory
ofcompetingexplanations,thisisnotthecaseatleastnotgenerally.
Someincreasesincomplexityaresometimesnecessary.Sothereremainsa
justifiedgeneralbiastowardthesimpleroftwocompetingexplanations.To
understandwhy,considerthatforeachacceptedexplanationofa
phenomenon,thereisalwaysaninfinitenumberofpossible,morecomplex,
andultimatelyincorrect,alternatives.Thisissobecauseonecanalways
burdenfailingexplanationswithadhochypothesis.Adhochypothesesare
justificationsthatpreventtheoriesfrombeingfalsified.Evenother
empiricalcriteria,suchasconsilience,cannevertrulyeliminatesuch
explanationsascompetition.Eachtrueexplanation,then,mayhavehad
manyalternativesthatweresimplerandfalse,butalsoaninfinitenumber
ofalternativesthatweremorecomplexandfalse.Butifanalternateadhoc
hypothesiswereindeedjustifiable,itsimplicitconclusionswouldbe
empiricallyverifiable.Onacommonlyacceptedrepeatabilityprinciple,
thesealternatetheorieshaveneverbeenobservedandcontinuetoescape
observation.Inaddition,onedoesnotsayanexplanationistrueifithasnot
withstoodthisprinciple.

Possibleexplanationscanbecome
needlesslycomplex.Itiscoherent,for
instance,toaddtheinvolvementof
leprechaunstoanyexplanation,but
Occam'srazorwouldpreventsuch
additionsunlesstheywerenecessary.

Putanotherway,anynew,andevenmorecomplex,theorycanstillpossiblybetrue.Forexample,ifanindividual
makessupernaturalclaimsthatleprechaunswereresponsibleforbreakingavase,thesimplerexplanationwouldbe
thatheismistaken,butongoingadhocjustifications(e.g."...andthat'snotmeonthefilmtheytamperedwith
that,too")successfullypreventoutrightfalsification.Thisendlesssupplyofelaboratecompetingexplanations,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

4/18

7/8/2016

Occam'srazorWikipedia,thefreeencyclopedia

calledsavinghypotheses,cannotberuledoutexceptbyusingOccam'srazor.[28][29][30]Astudyofthepredictive
validityofOccamsrazorfound32publishedpapersthatincluded97comparisonsofforecastsfromsimpleand
complexforecastingmethods.Noneofthepapersprovidedabalanceofevidencethatcomplexityofmethod
improvedforecastaccuracy.Inthe25paperswithquantitativecomparisons,complexityincreasedforecasterrors
byanaverageof27percent[31]

Practicalconsiderationsandpragmatism
Thecommonformoftherazor,usedtodistinguishbetweenequallyexplanatoryhypotheses,maybesupportedby
thepracticalfactthatsimplertheoriesareeasiertounderstand.
SomearguethatOccam'srazorisnotaninferencedrivenmodel,butaheuristicmaximforchoosingamongother
modelsandinsteadunderliesinduction.
Alternatively,ifonewantstohavereasonablediscussiononemaybepracticallyforcedtoacceptOccam'srazorin
thesamewayoneissimplyforcedtoacceptthelawsofthoughtandinductivereasoning(giventheproblemof
induction).PhilosopherElliottSoberstatesthatnotevenreasonitselfcanbejustifiedonanyreasonablegrounds,
andthatwemuststartwithfirstprinciplesofsomekind(otherwiseaninfiniteregressoccurs).
Thepragmatistmaygoon,asDavidHumedidonthetopicofinduction,thatthereisnosatisfyingalternativeto
grantingthispremise.ThoughonemayclaimthatOccam'srazorisinvalidasapremisethathelpsregulate
theories,puttingthisdoubtintopracticewouldmeandoubtingwhethereverystepforwardwillresultin
locomotionoranuclearexplosion.Inotherwords:"What'sthealternative?"

Mathematical
OnejustificationofOccam'srazorisadirectresultofbasicprobabilitytheory.Bydefinition,allassumptions
introducepossibilitiesforerrorifanassumptiondoesnotimprovetheaccuracyofatheory,itsonlyeffectisto
increasetheprobabilitythattheoveralltheoryiswrong.
TherehavealsobeenotherattemptstoderiveOccam'srazorfromprobabilitytheory,includingnotableattempts
madebyHaroldJeffreysandE.T.Jaynes.Theprobabilistic(Bayesian)basisforOccam'srazoriselaboratedby
DavidJ.C.MacKayinchapter28ofhisbookInformationTheory,Inference,andLearningAlgorithms,[32]where
heemphasisesthatapriorbiasinfavourofsimplermodelsisnotrequired.
WilliamH.Jefferys(norelationtoHaroldJeffreys)andJamesO.Berger(1991)generalizeandquantifythe
originalformulation's"assumptions"conceptasthedegreetowhichapropositionisunnecessarilyaccommodating
topossibleobservabledata.[33]Theystate,"Ahypothesiswithfeweradjustableparameterswillautomaticallyhave
anenhancedposteriorprobability,duetothefactthatthepredictionsitmakesaresharp."[33]Themodelthey
proposebalancestheprecisionofatheory'spredictionsagainsttheirsharpnesspreferringtheoriesthatsharply
makecorrectpredictionsovertheoriesthataccommodateawiderangeofotherpossibleresults.This,again,
reflectsthemathematicalrelationshipbetweenkeyconceptsinBayesianinference(namelymarginalprobability,
conditionalprobability,andposteriorprobability).

Otherphilosophers
KarlPopper

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

5/18

7/8/2016

Occam'srazorWikipedia,thefreeencyclopedia

KarlPopperarguesthatapreferenceforsimpletheoriesneednotappealtopracticaloraestheticconsiderations.
Ourpreferenceforsimplicitymaybejustifiedbyitsfalsifiabilitycriterion:weprefersimplertheoriestomore
complexones"becausetheirempiricalcontentisgreaterandbecausetheyarebettertestable"(Popper1992).The
ideahereisthatasimpletheoryappliestomorecasesthanamorecomplexone,andisthusmoreeasilyfalsifiable.
Thisisagaincomparingasimpletheorytoamorecomplextheorywherebothexplainthedataequallywell.
ElliottSober
ThephilosopherofscienceElliottSoberoncearguedalongthesamelinesasPopper,tyingsimplicitywith
"informativeness":Thesimplesttheoryisthemoreinformative,inthesensethatitrequireslessinformationtoa
question.[34]Hehassincerejectedthisaccountofsimplicity,purportedlybecauseitfailstoprovideanepistemic
justificationforsimplicity.Henowbelievesthatsimplicityconsiderations(andconsiderationsofparsimonyin
particular)donotcountunlesstheyreflectsomethingmorefundamental.Philosophers,hesuggests,mayhave
madetheerrorofhypostatizingsimplicity(i.e.,endoweditwithasuigenerisexistence),whenithasmeaningonly
whenembeddedinaspecificcontext(Sober1992).Ifwefailtojustifysimplicityconsiderationsonthebasisofthe
contextinwhichweusethem,wemayhavenononcircularjustification:"Justasthequestion'whyberational?'
mayhavenononcircularanswer,thesamemaybetrueofthequestion'whyshouldsimplicitybeconsideredin
evaluatingtheplausibilityofhypotheses?'"[35]
RichardSwinburne
RichardSwinburnearguesforsimplicityonlogicalgrounds:
...thesimplesthypothesisproposedasanexplanationofphenomenaismorelikelytobethetrueone
thanisanyotheravailablehypothesis,thatitspredictionsaremorelikelytobetruethanthoseofany
otheravailablehypothesis,andthatitisanultimateaprioriepistemicprinciplethatsimplicityis
evidencefortruth.
Swinburne1997
AccordingtoSwinburne,sinceourchoiceoftheorycannotbedeterminedbydata(seeUnderdeterminationand
QuineDuhemthesis),wemustrelyonsomecriteriontodeterminewhichtheorytouse.Sinceitisabsurdtohave
nologicalmethodforsettlingononehypothesisamongstaninfinitenumberofequallydatacomplianthypotheses,
weshouldchoosethesimplesttheory:"Eitherscienceisirrational[inthewayitjudgestheoriesandpredictions
probable]ortheprincipleofsimplicityisafundamentalsyntheticaprioritruth."(Swinburne1997).
LudwigWittgenstein
FromtheTractatusLogicoPhilosophicus:
3.328Ifasignisnotnecessarythenitismeaningless.ThatisthemeaningofOccam'sRazor.
(Ifeverythinginthesymbolismworksasthoughasignhadmeaning,thenithasmeaning.)
4.04Inthepropositiontheremustbeexactlyasmanythingsdistinguishableasthereareinthestateof
affairswhichitrepresents.Theymustbothpossessthesamelogical(mathematical)multiplicity(cf.Hertz's
Mechanics,onDynamicModels).
5.47321Occam'sRazoris,ofcourse,notanarbitraryrulenoronejustifiedbyitspracticalsuccess.Itsimply
saysthatunnecessaryelementsinasymbolismmeannothing.Signswhichserveonepurposearelogically
equivalentsignswhichservenopurposearelogicallymeaningless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

6/18

7/8/2016

Occam'srazorWikipedia,thefreeencyclopedia

andontherelatedconceptof"simplicity":
6.363Theprocedureofinductionconsistsinacceptingastruethesimplestlawthatcanbereconciledwith
ourexperiences.

Applications
Scienceandthescientificmethod
Inscience,Occam'srazorisusedasaheuristictoguidescientistsindevelopingtheoreticalmodelsratherthanas
anarbiterbetweenpublishedmodels.[1][2]Inphysics,parsimonywasanimportantheuristicinAlbertEinstein's
formulationofspecialrelativity,[36][37]inthedevelopmentandapplicationoftheprincipleofleastactionbyPierre
LouisMaupertuisandLeonhardEuler,[38]andinthedevelopmentofquantummechanicsbyMaxPlanck,Werner
HeisenbergandLouisdeBroglie.[2][39]
Inchemistry,Occam'srazorisoftenanimportantheuristicwhendevelopingamodelofareaction
mechanism.[40][41]Althoughitisusefulasaheuristicindevelopingmodelsofreactionmechanisms,ithasbeen
showntofailasacriterionforselectingamongsomeselectedpublishedmodels.[2]Inthiscontext,Einsteinhimself
expressedcautionwhenheformulatedEinstein'sConstraint:"Itcanscarcelybedeniedthatthesupremegoalofall
theoryistomaketheirreduciblebasicelementsassimpleandasfewaspossiblewithouthavingtosurrenderthe
adequaterepresentationofasingledatumofexperience".Anoftenquotedversionofthisconstraint(whichcannot
beverifiedaspositedbyEinsteinhimself)[42]says"Everythingshouldbekeptassimpleaspossible,butno
simpler."
Inthescientificmethod,parsimonyisanepistemological,metaphysicalorheuristicpreference,notanirrefutable
principleoflogicorascientificresult.[3][4][43]Asalogicalprinciple,Occam'srazorwoulddemandthatscientists
acceptthesimplestpossibletheoreticalexplanationforexistingdata.However,sciencehasshownrepeatedlythat
futuredataoftensupportmorecomplextheoriesthandoexistingdata.Scienceprefersthesimplestexplanationthat
isconsistentwiththedataavailableatagiventime,butthesimplestexplanationmayberuledoutasnewdata
becomeavailable.[1][4]Thatis,scienceisopentothepossibilitythatfutureexperimentsmightsupportmore
complextheoriesthandemandedbycurrentdataandismoreinterestedindesigningexperimentstodiscriminate
betweencompetingtheoriesthanfavoringonetheoryoveranotherbasedmerelyonphilosophicalprinciples.[3][4][5]
Whenscientistsusetheideaofparsimony,ithasmeaningonlyinaveryspecificcontextofinquiry.Several
backgroundassumptionsarerequiredforparsimonytoconnectwithplausibilityinaparticularresearchproblem.
Thereasonablenessofparsimonyinoneresearchcontextmayhavenothingtodowithitsreasonablenessin
another.Itisamistaketothinkthatthereisasingleglobalprinciplethatspansdiversesubjectmatter.[5]
IthasbeensuggestedthatOccam'srazorisawidelyacceptedexampleofextraevidentialconsideration,even
thoughitisentirelyametaphysicalassumption.Thereislittleempiricalevidencethattheworldisactuallysimple
orthatsimpleaccountsaremorelikelytobetruethancomplexones.[44]
Mostofthetime,Occam'srazorisaconservativetool,cuttingoutcrazy,complicatedconstructionsandassuring
thathypothesesaregroundedinthescienceoftheday,thusyielding"normal"science:modelsofexplanationand
prediction.Thereare,however,notableexceptionswhereOccam'srazorturnsaconservativescientistintoa
reluctantrevolutionary.Forexample,MaxPlanckinterpolatedbetweentheWienandJeansradiationlawsandused
Occam'srazorlogictoformulatethequantumhypothesis,evenresistingthathypothesisasitbecamemoreobvious
thatitwascorrect.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

7/18

7/8/2016

Occam'srazorWikipedia,thefreeencyclopedia

Appealstosimplicitywereusedtoargueagainstthephenomenaofmeteorites,balllightning,continentaldrift,and
reversetranscriptase.Onecanargueforatomicbuildingblocksformatter,becauseitprovidesasimpler
explanationfortheobservedreversibilityofbothmixingandchemicalreactionsassimpleseparationand
rearrangementsofatomicbuildingblocks.Atthetime,however,theatomictheorywasconsideredmorecomplex
becauseitimpliedtheexistenceofinvisibleparticlesthathadnotbeendirectlydetected.ErnstMachandthe
logicalpositivistsrejectedJohnDalton'satomictheoryuntiltherealityofatomswasmoreevidentinBrownian
motion,asshownbyAlbertEinstein.[45]
Inthesameway,postulatingtheaetherismorecomplexthantransmissionoflightthroughavacuum.Atthetime,
however,allknownwavespropagatedthroughaphysicalmedium,anditseemedsimplertopostulatetheexistence
ofamediumthantotheorizeaboutwavepropagationwithoutamedium.Likewise,Newton'sideaoflightparticles
seemedsimplerthanChristiaanHuygens'sideaofwaves,somanyfavoredit.Inthiscase,asitturnedout,neither
thewavenortheparticleexplanationalonesuffices,aslightbehaveslikewavesandlikeparticles.
Threeaxiomspresupposedbythescientificmethodarerealism(theexistenceofobjectivereality),theexistenceof
naturallaws,andtheconstancyofnaturallaw.Ratherthandependonprovabilityoftheseaxioms,sciencedepends
onthefactthattheyhavenotbeenobjectivelyfalsified.Occam'srazorandparsimonysupport,butdonotprove,
theseaxiomsofscience.Thegeneralprincipleofscienceisthattheories(ormodels)ofnaturallawmustbe
consistentwithrepeatableexperimentalobservations.Thisultimatearbiter(selectioncriterion)restsuponthe
axiomsmentionedabove.[4]
ThereareexampleswhereOccam'srazorwouldhavefavoredthewrongtheorygiventheavailabledata.Simplicity
principlesareusefulphilosophicalpreferencesforchoosingamorelikelytheoryfromamongseveralpossibilities
thatareallconsistentwithavailabledata.AsingleinstanceofOccam'srazorfavoringawrongtheoryfalsifiesthe
razorasageneralprinciple.[4]MichaelLeeandothers[46]providecasesinwhichaparsimoniousapproachdoesnot
guaranteeacorrectconclusionand,ifbasedonincorrectworkinghypothesesorinterpretationsofincompletedata,
mayevenstronglysupportafalseconclusion.Leestates,"Whenparsimonyceasestobeaguidelineandisinstead
elevatedtoanexcathedrapronouncement,parsimonyanalysisceasestobescience."
Ifmultiplemodelsofnaturallawmakeexactlythesametestablepredictions,theyareequivalentandthereisno
needforparsimonytochooseapreferredone.Forexample,Newtonian,HamiltonianandLagrangianclassical
mechanicsareequivalent.PhysicistshavenointerestinusingOccam'srazortosaytheothertwoarewrong.
Likewise,thereisnodemandforsimplicityprinciplestoarbitratebetweenwaveandmatrixformulationsof
quantummechanics.Scienceoftendoesnotdemandarbitrationorselectioncriteriabetweenmodelsthatmakethe
sametestablepredictions.[4]

Biology
BiologistsorphilosophersofbiologyuseOccam'srazorineitheroftwocontextsbothinevolutionarybiology:the
unitsofselectioncontroversyandsystematics.GeorgeC.WilliamsinhisbookAdaptationandNaturalSelection
(1966)arguesthatthebestwaytoexplainaltruismamonganimalsisbasedonlowlevel(i.e.,individual)selection
asopposedtohighlevelgroupselection.Altruismisdefinedbysomeevolutionarybiologists(e.g.,R.Alexander,
1987W.D.Hamilton,1964)asbehaviorthatisbeneficialtoothers(ortothegroup)atacosttotheindividual,
andmanypositindividualselectionasthemechanismthatexplainsaltruismsolelyintermsofthebehaviorsof
individualorganismsactingintheirownselfinterest(orintheinterestoftheirgenes,viakinselection).Williams
wasarguingagainsttheperspectiveofotherswhoproposeselectionatthelevelofthegroupasanevolutionary
mechanismthatselectsforaltruistictraits(e.g.,D.S.Wilson&E.O.Wilson,2007).ThebasisforWilliams'
contentionisthatofthetwo,individualselectionisthemoreparsimonioustheory.Indoingsoheisinvokinga
variantofOccam'srazorknownasMorgan'sCanon:"Innocaseisananimalactivitytobeinterpretedintermsof
higherpsychologicalprocesses,ifitcanbefairlyinterpretedintermsofprocesseswhichstandlowerinthescale
ofpsychologicalevolutionanddevelopment."(Morgan1903).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

8/18

7/8/2016

Occam'srazorWikipedia,thefreeencyclopedia

However,morerecentbiologicalanalyses,suchasRichardDawkins'TheSelfishGene,havecontendedthat
Morgan'sCanonisnotthesimplestandmostbasicexplanation.Dawkinsarguesthewayevolutionworksisthat
thegenespropagatedinmostcopiesendupdeterminingthedevelopmentofthatparticularspecies,i.e.,natural
selectionturnsouttoselectspecificgenes,andthisisreallythefundamentalunderlyingprinciple,that
automaticallygivesindividualandgroupselectionasemergentfeaturesofevolution.
Zoologyprovidesanexample.Muskoxen,whenthreatenedbywolves,formacirclewiththemalesontheoutside
andthefemalesandyoungontheinside.Thisisanexampleofabehaviorbythemalesthatseemstobealtruistic.
Thebehaviorisdisadvantageoustothemindividuallybutbeneficialtothegroupasawholeandwasthusseenby
sometosupportthegroupselectiontheory.
However,amuchbetterexplanationimmediatelyoffersitselfonceoneconsidersthatnaturalselectionworkson
genes.Ifthemalemuskoxrunsoffleavinghisoffspringtothewolves,hisgenesdonotpropagate.If,however,he
fights,hisgenesmayliveoninhisoffspring.Thus,the"stayandfight"geneprevails.Thisisanexampleofkin
selection.Anunderlyinggeneralprinciplethusoffersamuchsimplerexplanation,withoutretreatingtospecial
principlesasgroupselection.
Systematicsisthebranchofbiologythatattemptstoestablishgenealogicalrelationshipsamongorganisms.Itis
alsoconcernedwiththeirclassification.Therearethreeprimarycampsinsystematics:cladists,pheneticists,and
evolutionarytaxonomists.Thecladistsholdthatgenealogyaloneshoulddetermineclassificationandpheneticists
contendthatsimilarityoverpropinquityofdescentisthedeterminingcriterionwhileevolutionarytaxonomistssay
thatbothgenealogyandsimilaritycountinclassification.[47]
ItisamongthecladiststhatOccam'srazoristobefound,althoughtheirtermforitiscladisticparsimony.Cladistic
parsimony(ormaximumparsimony)isamethodofphylogeneticinferenceintheconstructionoftypesof
phylogenetictrees(morespecifically,cladograms).Cladogramsarebranching,treelikestructuresusedto
representlinesofdescentbasedononeormoreevolutionarychanges.Cladisticparsimonyisusedtosupportthe
hypothesesthatrequirethefewestevolutionarychanges.Forsometypesoftree,itconsistentlyproducesthewrong
results,regardlessofhowmuchdataiscollected(thisiscalledlongbranchattraction).Forafulltreatmentof
cladisticparsimony,seeElliottSober'sReconstructingthePast:Parsimony,Evolution,andInference(1988).Fora
discussionofbothusesofOccam'srazorinbiology,seeSober'sarticle"Let'sRazorOckham'sRazor"(1990).
Othermethodsforinferringevolutionaryrelationshipsuseparsimonyinamoretraditionalway.Likelihood
methodsforphylogenyuseparsimonyastheydoforalllikelihoodtests,withhypothesesrequiringfewdiffering
parameters(i.e.,numbersofdifferentratesofcharacterchangeordifferentfrequenciesofcharacterstate
transitions)beingtreatedasnullhypothesesrelativetohypothesesrequiringmanydifferingparameters.Thus,
complexhypothesesmustpredictdatamuchbetterthandosimplehypothesesbeforeresearchersrejectthesimple
hypotheses.Recentadvancesemployinformationtheory,aclosecousinoflikelihood,whichusesOccam'srazorin
thesameway.
FrancisCrickhascommentedonpotentiallimitationsofOccam'srazorinbiology.Headvancestheargumentthat
becausebiologicalsystemsaretheproductsof(anongoing)naturalselection,themechanismsarenotnecessarily
optimalinanobvioussense.Hecautions:"WhileOckham'srazorisausefultoolinthephysicalsciences,itcanbe
averydangerousimplementinbiology.Itisthusveryrashtousesimplicityandeleganceasaguideinbiological
research."[48]
Inbiogeography,parsimonyisusedtoinferancientmigrationsofspeciesorpopulationsbyobservingthe
geographicdistributionandrelationshipsofexistingorganisms.Giventhephylogenetictree,ancestralmigrations
areinferredtobethosethatrequiretheminimumamountoftotalmovement.

Medicine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

9/18

7/8/2016

Occam'srazorWikipedia,thefreeencyclopedia

WhendiscussingOccam'srazorincontemporarymedicine,doctorsandphilosophersofmedicinespeakof
diagnosticparsimony.Diagnosticparsimonyadvocatesthatwhendiagnosingagiveninjury,ailment,illness,or
diseaseadoctorshouldstrivetolookforthefewestpossiblecausesthataccountforallthesymptoms.This
philosophyisoneofseveraldemonstratedinthepopularmedicaladage"whenyouhearhoofbeatsbehindyou,
thinkhorses,notzebras".Whilediagnosticparsimonymightoftenbebeneficial,credenceshouldalsobegivento
thecounterargumentmodernlyknownasHickam'sdictum,whichsuccinctlystatesthat,"Patientscanhaveas
manydiseasesastheydamnwellplease."Itisoftenstatisticallymorelikelythatapatienthasseveralcommon
diseasesratherthanasinglerarerdiseasethatexplainsmyriadsymptoms.Also,independentlyofstatistical
likelihood,somepatientsdoinfactturnouttohavemultiplediseases,whichbycommonsensenullifiesthe
approachofinsistingtoexplainanygivencollectionofsymptomswithonedisease.
Thesemisgivingsemergefromsimpleprobabilitytheorywhichisalreadytakenintoaccountinmanymodern
variationsoftherazorandfromthefactthatthelossfunctionismuchgreaterinmedicinethaninmostofgeneral
science.Becausemisdiagnosiscanresultinthelossofaperson'shealthandpotentiallylife,itisconsideredbetter
totestandpursueallreasonabletheoriesevenifthereissometheorythatappearsthemostlikely.
DiagnosticparsimonyandthecounterbalanceitfindsinHickam'sdictumhaveveryimportantimplicationsin
medicalpractice.Anysetofsymptomscouldbeindicativeofarangeofpossiblediseasesanddisease
combinationsthoughatnopointisadiagnosisrejectedoracceptedjustonthebasisofonediseaseappearingmore
likelythananother,thecontinuousflowofhypothesisformulation,testingandmodificationbenefitsgreatlyfrom
estimatesregardingwhichdiseases(orsetsofdiseases)arerelativelymorelikelyresponsibleforasetof
symptoms,giventhepatient'senvironment,habits,medicalhistory,andsoon.Forexample,ifahypothetical
patient'simmediatelyapparentsymptomsincludefatigueandcirrhosisandtheytestnegativeforhepatitisC,their
doctormightformulateaworkinghypothesisthatthecirrhosiswascausedbytheirdrinkingproblem,andthen
seeksymptomsandperformteststoformulateandruleouthypothesesastowhathasbeencausingthefatiguebut
ifthedoctorweretofurtherdiscoverthatthepatient'sbreathinexplicablysmellsofgarlicandtheyaresuffering
frompulmonaryedema,theymightdecidetotestfortherelativelyrareconditionofseleniumpoisoning.

Religion
Inthephilosophyofreligion,Occam'srazorissometimesappliedtotheexistenceofGod.WilliamofOckham
himselfwasaChristian.HebelievedinGod,andintheauthorityofScripturehewritesthat"nothingoughttobe
positedwithoutareasongiven,unlessitisselfevident(literally,knownthroughitself)orknownbyexperienceor
provedbytheauthorityofSacredScripture."[49]Ockhambelievedthatanexplanationhasnosufficientbasisin
realitywhenitdoesnotharmonizewithreason,experience,ortheBible.However,unlikemanytheologiansofhis
time,OckhamdidnotbelieveGodcouldbelogicallyprovenwitharguments.ToOckham,sciencewasamatterof
discovery,buttheologywasamatterofrevelationandfaith.Hestates:"onlyfaithgivesusaccesstotheological
truths.ThewaysofGodarenotopentoreason,forGodhasfreelychosentocreateaworldandestablishawayof
salvationwithinitapartfromanynecessarylawsthathumanlogicorrationalitycanuncover."[50]
St.ThomasAquinas,intheSummaTheologica,usesaformulationofOccam'srazortoconstructanobjectionto
theideathatGodexists,whichherefutesdirectlywithacounterargument:[51]
Further,itissuperfluoustosupposethatwhatcanbeaccountedforbyafewprincipleshasbeen
producedbymany.Butitseemsthateverythingweseeintheworldcanbeaccountedforbyother
principles,supposingGoddidnotexist.Forallnaturalthingscanbereducedtooneprinciplewhichis
natureandallvoluntarythingscanbereducedtooneprinciplewhichishumanreason,orwill.
ThereforethereisnoneedtosupposeGod'sexistence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

10/18

7/8/2016

Occam'srazorWikipedia,thefreeencyclopedia

Inturn,Aquinasanswersthiswiththequinqueviae,andaddressestheparticularobjectionabovewiththe
followinganswer:
Sincenatureworksforadeterminateendunderthedirectionofahigheragent,whateverisdoneby
naturemustneedsbetracedbacktoGod,astoitsfirstcause.Soalsowhateverisdonevoluntarily
mustalsobetracedbacktosomehighercauseotherthanhumanreasonorwill,sincethesecanchange
orfailforallthingsthatarechangeableandcapableofdefectmustbetracedbacktoanimmovable
andselfnecessaryfirstprinciple,aswasshowninthebodyoftheArticle.
Ratherthanargueforthenecessityofagod,sometheistsbasetheirbeliefupongroundsindependentof,orprior
to,reason,makingOccam'srazorirrelevant.ThiswasthestanceofSrenKierkegaard,whoviewedbeliefinGod
asaleapoffaiththatsometimesdirectlyopposedreason.[52]ThisisalsothedoctrineofGordonClark's
presuppositionalapologetics,withtheexceptionthatClarkneverthoughttheleapoffaithwascontrarytoreason
(seealsoFideism).
VariousargumentsinfavorofGodestablishGodasausefulorevennecessaryassumption.Contrastinglysome
atheistsholdfirmlytothebeliefthatassumingtheexistenceofGodintroducesunnecessarycomplexity(Schmitt
2005,e.g.,theUltimateBoeing747gambit).Takinganuancedposition,philosopherDelRatzsch[53]suggeststhat
theapplicationoftherazortoGodmaynotbesosimple,leastofallwhenwearecomparingthathypothesiswith
theoriespostulatingmultipleinvisibleuniverses.[54]
AnotherapplicationoftheprincipleistobefoundintheworkofGeorgeBerkeley(16851753).Berkeleywasan
idealistwhobelievedthatallofrealitycouldbeexplainedintermsofthemindalone.HeinvokedOccam'srazor
againstmaterialism,statingthatmatterwasnotrequiredbyhismetaphysicandwasthuseliminable.Onepotential
problemwiththisbeliefisthatit'spossible,givenBerkeley'sposition,tofindsolipsismitselfmoreinlinewiththe
razorthanaGodmediatedworldbeyondasinglethinker.
Occam'srazormayalsoberecognizedintheapocryphalstoryaboutanexchangebetweenPierreSimonLaplace
andNapoleon.ItissaidthatinpraisingLaplaceforoneofhisrecentpublications,theemperoraskedhowitwas
thatthenameofGod,whichfeaturedsofrequentlyinthewritingsofLagrange,appearednowhereinLaplace's.At
that,heissaidtohavereplied,"It'sbecauseIhadnoneedofthathypothesis."[55]Thoughsomepointtothisstory
asillustratingLaplace'satheism,morecarefulconsiderationsuggeststhathemayinsteadhaveintendedmerelyto
illustratethepowerofmethodologicalnaturalism,orevensimplythatthefewerlogicalpremisesoneassumes,the
strongerisone'sconclusion.
Inhisarticle"SensationsandBrainProcesses"(1959),J.J.C.SmartinvokedOccam'srazorwiththeaimtojustify
hispreferenceofthemindbrainidentitytheoryoverspiritbodydualism.Dualistsstatethattherearetwokindsof
substancesintheuniverse:physical(includingthebody)andspiritual,whichisnonphysical.Incontrast,identity
theoristsstatethateverythingisphysical,includingconsciousness,andthatthereisnothingnonphysical.Thoughit
isimpossibletoappreciatethespiritualwhenlimitingoneselftothephysical,Smartmaintainedthatidentitytheory
explainsallphenomenabyassumingonlyaphysicalreality.Subsequently,Smarthasbeenseverelycriticizedfor
hisuse(ormisuse)ofOccam'srazorandultimatelyretractedhisadvocacyofitinthiscontext.PaulChurchland
(1984)statesthatbyitselfOccam'srazorisinconclusiveregardingduality.Inasimilarway,DaleJacquette(1994)
statedthatOccam'srazorhasbeenusedinattemptstojustifyeliminativismandreductionisminthephilosophyof
mind.Eliminativismisthethesisthattheontologyoffolkpsychologyincludingsuchentitiesas"pain","joy",
"desire","fear",etc.,areeliminableinfavorofanontologyofacompletedneuroscience.

Penalethics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

11/18

7/8/2016

Occam'srazorWikipedia,thefreeencyclopedia

Inpenaltheoryandthephilosophyofpunishment,parsimonyrefersspecificallytotakingcareinthedistributionof
punishmentinordertoavoidexcessivepunishment.Intheutilitarianapproachtothephilosophyofpunishment,
JeremyBentham's"parsimonyprinciple"statesthatanypunishmentgreaterthanisrequiredtoachieveitsendis
unjust.Theconceptisrelatedbutnotidenticaltothelegalconceptofproportionality.Parsimonyisakey
considerationofthemodernrestorativejustice,andisacomponentofutilitarianapproachestopunishment,aswell
astheprisonabolitionmovement.Benthambelievedthattrueparsimonywouldrequirepunishmenttobe
individualisedtotakeaccountofthesensibilityoftheindividualanindividualmoresensitivetopunishment
shouldbegivenaproportionatelylesserone,sinceotherwiseneedlesspainwouldbeinflicted.Laterutilitarian
writershavetendedtoabandonthisidea,inlargepartduetotheimpracticalityofdeterminingeachalleged
criminal'srelativesensitivitytospecificpunishments.[56]

Probabilitytheoryandstatistics
MarcusHutter'suniversalartificialintelligencebuildsuponSolomonoff'smathematicalformalizationoftherazor
tocalculatetheexpectedvalueofanaction.
TherearevariouspapersinscholarlyjournalsderivingformalversionsofOccam'srazorfromprobabilitytheory,
applyingitinstatisticalinference,andusingittocomeupwithcriteriaforpenalizingcomplexityinstatistical
inference.Papers[57][58]havesuggestedaconnectionbetweenOccam'srazorandKolmogorovcomplexity.[59]
Oneoftheproblemswiththeoriginalformulationoftherazoristhatitonlyappliestomodelswiththesame
explanatorypower(i.e.,itonlytellsustopreferthesimplestofequallygoodmodels).Amoregeneralformofthe
razorcanbederivedfromBayesianmodelcomparison,whichisbasedonBayesfactorsandcanbeusedto
comparemodelsthatdon'tfittheobservationsequallywell.Thesemethodscansometimesoptimallybalancethe
complexityandpowerofamodel.Generally,theexactOccamfactorisintractable,butapproximationssuchas
Akaikeinformationcriterion,Bayesianinformationcriterion,VariationalBayesianmethods,falsediscoveryrate,
andLaplace'smethodareused.Manyartificialintelligenceresearchersarenowemployingsuchtechniques,for
instancethroughworkonOccamLearning.
StatisticalversionsofOccam'srazorhaveamorerigorousformulationthanwhatphilosophicaldiscussions
produce.Inparticular,theymusthaveaspecificdefinitionofthetermsimplicity,andthatdefinitioncanvary.For
example,intheKolmogorovChaitinminimumdescriptionlengthapproach,thesubjectmustpickaTuring
machinewhoseoperationsdescribethebasicoperationsbelievedtorepresent"simplicity"bythesubject.However,
onecouldalwayschooseaTuringmachinewithasimpleoperationthathappenedtoconstructone'sentiretheory
andwouldhencescorehighlyundertherazor.Thishasledtotwoopposingcamps:onethatbelievesOccam's
razorisobjective,andonethatbelievesitissubjective.
Objectiverazor
TheminimuminstructionsetofauniversalTuringmachinerequiresapproximatelythesamelengthdescription
acrossdifferentformulations,andissmallcomparedtotheKolmogorovcomplexityofmostpracticaltheories.
MarcusHutterhasusedthisconsistencytodefinea"natural"Turingmachineofsmallsizeastheproperbasisfor
excludingarbitrarilycomplexinstructionsetsintheformulationofrazors.[60]Describingtheprogramforthe
universalprogramasthe"hypothesis",andtherepresentationoftheevidenceasprogramdata,ithasbeenformally
provenunderZermeloFraenkelsettheorythat"thesumoftheloguniversalprobabilityofthemodelplusthelog
oftheprobabilityofthedatagiventhemodelshouldbeminimized."[61]Interpretingthisasminimisingthetotal
lengthofatwopartmessageencodingmodelfollowedbydatagivenmodelgivesustheminimummessagelength
(MML)principle.[57][58]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

12/18

7/8/2016

Occam'srazorWikipedia,thefreeencyclopedia

OnepossibleconclusionfrommixingtheconceptsofKolmogorovcomplexityandOccam'srazoristhatanideal
datacompressorwouldalsobeascientificexplanation/formulationgenerator.Someattemptshavebeenmadeto
rederiveknownlawsfromconsiderationsofsimplicityorcompressibility.[62][63]
AccordingtoJrgenSchmidhuber,theappropriatemathematicaltheoryofOccam'srazoralreadyexists,namely,
Solomonoff'stheoryofoptimalinductiveinference[64]anditsextensions.[65]SeediscussionsinDavidL.Dowe's
"ForewordreC.S.Wallace"[66]forthesubtledistinctionsbetweenthealgorithmicprobabilityworkofSolomonoff
andtheMMLworkofChrisWallace,andseeDowe's"MML,hybridBayesiannetworkgraphicalmodels,
statisticalconsistency,invarianceanduniqueness"[67]bothforsuchdiscussionsandfor(insection4)discussions
ofMMLandOccam'srazor.ForaspecificexampleofMMLasOccam'srazorintheproblemofdecisiontree
induction,seeDoweandNeedham's"MessageLengthasanEffectiveOckham'sRazorinDecisionTree
Induction".[68]

Controversialaspectsoftherazor
Occam'srazorisnotanembargoagainstthepositingofanykindofentity,orarecommendationofthesimplest
theorycomewhatmay.[a]Occam'srazorisusedtoadjudicatebetweentheoriesthathavealreadypassed
"theoreticalscrutiny"testsandareequallywellsupportedbyevidence.[b]Furthermore,itmaybeusedtoprioritize
empiricaltestingbetweentwoequallyplausiblebutunequallytestablehypothesestherebyminimizingcostsand
wasteswhiledecreasingchancesoffalsificationofthesimplertotesthypothesis.
Anothercontentiousaspectoftherazoristhatatheorycanbecomemorecomplexintermsofitsstructure(or
syntax),whileitsontology(orsemantics)becomessimpler,orviceversa.[c]Quine,inadiscussionondefinition,
referredtothesetwoperspectivesas"economyofpracticalexpression"and"economyingrammarand
vocabulary",respectively.[70]Thetheoryofrelativityisoftengivenasanexampleoftheproliferationofcomplex
wordstodescribeasimpleconcept.
GalileoGalileilampoonedthemisuseofOccam'srazorinhisDialogue.Theprincipleisrepresentedinthe
dialoguebySimplicio.ThetellingpointthatGalileopresentedironicallywasthatifonereallywantedtostartfrom
asmallnumberofentities,onecouldalwaysconsiderthelettersofthealphabetasthefundamentalentities,since
onecouldconstructthewholeofhumanknowledgeoutofthem.

Antirazors
Occam'srazorhasmetsomeoppositionfrompeoplewhohaveconsideredittooextremeorrash.WalterChatton
(c.12901343)wasacontemporaryofWilliamofOckham(c.12871347)whotookexceptiontoOccam'srazor
andOckham'suseofit.Inresponsehedevisedhisownantirazor:"Ifthreethingsarenotenoughtoverifyan
affirmativepropositionaboutthings,afourthmustbeadded,andsoon."Althoughtherehavebeenanumberof
philosopherswhohaveformulatedsimilarantirazorssinceChatton'stime,nooneantirazorhasperpetuatedinas
muchnotabilityasChatton'santirazor,althoughthiscouldbethecaseoftheLateRenaissanceItalianmottoof
unknownattributionSenonvero,bentrovato("Evenifitisnottrue,itiswellconceived")whenreferredtoa
particularlyartfulexplanation.Forfurtherinformation,see"Ockham'sRazorandChatton'sAntiRazor"(1984)by
ArmandMaurer.
AntirazorshavealsobeencreatedbyGottfriedWilhelmLeibniz(16461716),ImmanuelKant(17241804),and
KarlMenger(19021985).Leibniz'sversiontooktheformofaprincipleofplenitude,asArthurLovejoyhas
calledit:theideabeingthatGodcreatedthemostvariedandpopulousofpossibleworlds.Kantfeltaneedto

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

13/18

7/8/2016

Occam'srazorWikipedia,thefreeencyclopedia

moderatetheeffectsofOccam'srazorandthuscreatedhisowncounterrazor:"Thevarietyofbeingsshouldnot
rashlybediminished."[71]
KarlMengerfoundmathematicianstobetooparsimoniouswithregardtovariables,soheformulatedhisLaw
AgainstMiserliness,whichtookoneoftwoforms:"Entitiesmustnotbereducedtothepointofinadequacy"and
"Itisvaintodowithfewerwhatrequiresmore."Alessseriousbut(somemightsay)evenmoreextremistanti
razoris'Pataphysics,the"scienceofimaginarysolutions"developedbyAlfredJarry(18731907).Perhapsthe
ultimateinantireductionism,"'Pataphysicsseeksnolessthantovieweacheventintheuniverseascompletely
unique,subjecttonolawsbutitsown."VariationsonthisthemeweresubsequentlyexploredbytheArgentine
writerJorgeLuisBorgesinhisstory/mockessay"Tln,Uqbar,OrbisTertius".ThereisalsoCrabtree'sBludgeon,
whichcynicallystatesthat"[n]osetofmutuallyinconsistentobservationscanexistforwhichsomehumanintellect
cannotconceiveacoherentexplanation,howevercomplicated."

Seealso
Algorithmicinformation
theory
Assumeacanopener
Chekhov'sgun
Commonsense
Cladistics
Eliminativematerialism
Explanatorypower
Falsifiability
Framing(socialsciences)
Greedyreductionism
Hanlon'srazor
Hitchens'srazor

Hitchens'srazor
Inductiveprobability
KISSprinciple
McNamarafallacy
Metaphysicalnaturalism
Minimumdescriptionlength
Minimummessagelength
Newton'sflaminglasersword
Philosophyofscience
Principleofleast
astonishment
Pseudoscience
Rationalism

Rationalism
Razor(philosophy)
Regressargument
Scientificmethod
Scientificreductionism
Scientificskepticism
Simplicity
SparseMatrix
Sphericalcow

Notes
a."Ockham'srazordoesnotsaythatthemoresimpleahypothesis,thebetter."[69]
b."Today,wethinkoftheprincipleofparsimonyasaheuristicdevice.Wedon'tassumethatthesimplertheoryiscorrect
andthemorecomplexonefalse.Weknowfromexperiencethatmoreoftenthannotthetheorythatrequiresmore
complicatedmachinationsiswrong.Untilprovedotherwise,themorecomplextheorycompetingwithasimpler
explanationshouldbeputonthebackburner,butnotthrownontothetrashheapofhistoryuntilprovenfalse."[69]
c."Whilethesetwofacetsofsimplicityarefrequentlyconflated,itisimportanttotreatthemasdistinct.Onereasonfor
doingsoisthatconsiderationsofparsimonyandofelegancetypicallypullindifferentdirections.Postulatingextra
entitiesmayallowatheorytobeformulatedmoresimply,whilereducingtheontologyofatheorymayonlybepossible
atthepriceofmakingitsyntacticallymorecomplex."[3]

References
1.HughG.Gauch,ScientificMethodinPractice,CambridgeUniversityPress,2003,ISBN0521017084,ISBN9780
521017084.
2.RoaldHoffmann,VladimirI.Minkin,BarryK.Carpenter,Ockham'sRazorandChemistry,HYLEInternational
JournalforPhilosophyofChemistry,Vol.3,pp.328,(1997).
3.AlanBaker(2010)[2004]."Simplicity".StanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy.California:StanfordUniversity.
ISSN10955054.Retrieved20160224.
4.CourtneyA,CourtneyM(2008)."CommentsRegarding"OntheNatureOfScience" "(PDF).PhysicsinCanada64(3):
78.Retrieved1August2012.
5.ElliottSober,Let'sRazorOccam'sRazor,pp.7393,fromDudleyKnowles(ed.)ExplanationandItsLimits,Cambridge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

14/18

7/8/2016

Occam'srazorWikipedia,thefreeencyclopedia

UniversityPress(1994).
6.VogelCarey,Toni(Oct2010).Lewis,Rick,ed."Parsimony(Inasfewwordsaspossible)".PhilosophyNow(UK)(81).
Retrieved27October2012.
7.RogerAriew,Ockham'sRazor:AHistoricalandPhilosophicalAnalysisofOckham'sPrincipleofParsimony,1976
8.JohannesPonciusscommentaryonJohnDunsScotus'sOpusOxoniense,bookIII,dist.34,q.1.inJohnDunsScotus
OperaOmnia,vol.15,Ed.LukeWadding,Louvain(1639),reprintedParis:Vives,(1894)p.483a
9.Aristotle,Physics189a15,OntheHeavens271a33.SeealsoFranklin,opcit.note44tochap.9.
10.Charlesworth,M.J.(1956)."Aristotle'sRazor".PhilosophicalStudies(Ireland)
11.Wikipedians,ComplexityandDynamics(https://books.google.com/books?id=WIXP3VhztgC)citingRichardMcKeon
(tr.)Aristotle'sPosteriorAnalytics(1963)p.150
12.JamesFranklin(2001).TheScienceofConjecture:EvidenceandProbabilitybeforePascal.TheJohnsHopkins
UniversityPress.Chap9.p.241.
13.AlistairCameronCrombie,RobertGrossetesteandtheOriginsofExperimentalScience11001700(1953)pp.8586
14."SUMMATHEOLOGICA:TheexistenceofGod(PrimaPars,Q.2)".Newadvent.org.Retrieved20130326.
15."WhatOckhamreallysaid".BoingBoing.20130211.Retrieved20130326.
16.Bauer,Laurie(2007).ThelinguisticsStudent'sHandbook.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress.p.155.
17.Flew,Antony(1979).ADictionaryofPhilosophy.London:PanBooks.p.253.
18.AlistairCameronCrombie(1959),MedievalandEarlyModernPhilosophy,Cambridge,MA:Harvard,Vol.2,p.30.
19."Ockham'srazor".EncyclopdiaBritannica.EncyclopdiaBritannicaOnline.2010.Retrieved12June2010.
20.Hawking,Stephen(2003).OntheShouldersofGiants.RunningPress.p.731.ISBN076241698X.Retrieved
20160224.
21.Primarysource:Newton(2011,p.387)wrotethefollowingtwo"philosophizingrules"atthebeginningofpart3ofthe
Principia1726edition.
RegulaI.Causasrerumnaturaliumnonpluresadmittidebere,quamqu&versint&earumphnomenis
explicandissufficient.
RegulaII.Ideoqueeffectuumnaturaliumejusdemgenerisedemassignandsuntcaus,quatenusfieripotest.
22."LogicalConstructions".
23.Induction:FromKolmogorovandSolomonofftoDeFinettiandBacktoKolmogorovJJMcCallMetroeconomica,2004
WileyOnlineLibrary.
24.A.N.Soklakov(2002)."Occam'sRazorasaformalbasisforaphysicaltheory".FoundationsofPhysicsLetters
(Springer).
25.SamuelRathmannerMarcusHutter(2011)."Aphilosophicaltreatiseofuniversalinduction".Entropy13(6):10761136.
doi:10.3390/e13061076.
26.Baker,Alan(Feb25,2010).EdwardN.Zalta,ed."Simplicity".TheStanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy(Summer2011
Edition).
27.Pegis1945.
28.Stanovich,KeithE.(2007).HowtoThinkStraightAboutPsychology.Boston:PearsonEducation,pp.1933.
29.Carroll,RobertT."Adhochypothesis."TheSkeptic'sDictionary.22June2008.(http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html)
30.Swinburne1997andWilliams,GarethT,2008.
31.Green,K.C.Armstrong,J.S.(2015)."Simpleversuscomplexforecasting:Theevidence".JournalofBusiness
Research68:16781685.doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.03.026.(subscriptionrequired)
32."InformationTheory,Inference,andLearningAlgorithms"(PDF).
33.Jefferys,WilliamH.Berger,JamesO.(1991)."Ockham'sRazorandBayesianStatistics(preprintavailableas
"SharpeningOccam'sRazoronaBayesianStrop")"(PDF).AmericanScientist80:6472.
34.Sober,Elliott(1975).Simplicity.Oxford:ClarendonPress(animprintofOxfordUniversityPress).ISBN978019
8244073
35.Sober,Elliott(2004)."WhatistheProblemofSimplicity?".InArnoldZellner,HugoA.Keuzenkamp&Michael
McAleer.Simplicity,InferenceandModeling:KeepingitSophisticatedlySimple.Cambridge,U.K.:CambridgeUniversity
Press.pp.1331.ISBN0521803616.Retrieved4August2012ISBN0511007485(eBook[AdobeReader])paper
aspdf(http://philosophy.wisc.edu/sober/TILBURG.pdf)
36.Einstein,Albert(1905)."AnnalenderPhysik"(inGerman)(18):63941.|contribution=ignored(help)
37.LNash,TheNatureoftheNaturalSciences,Boston:Little,Brown(1963).
38.deMaupertuis,PLM(1744)."Mmoiresdel'AcadmieRoyale"(inFrench):423.
39.deBroglie,L(1925)."AnnalesdePhysique"(inFrench)(3/10):22128.
40.RAJackson,Mechanism:AnIntroductiontotheStudyofOrganicReactions,Clarendon,Oxford,1972.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

15/18

7/8/2016

Occam'srazorWikipedia,thefreeencyclopedia

41.BKCarpenter,DeterminationofOrganicReactionMechanism,WileyInterscience,NewYork,1984.
42."EverythingShouldBeMadeasSimpleasPossible,ButNotSimpler".
43.Sober,Eliot(1994)."Let'sRazorOccam'sRazor".InKnowles,Dudley.ExplanationandItsLimits.Cambridge
UniversityPress.pp.7393.
44.NaomiOreskesKristinShraderFrechetteKennethBelitz(Feb4,1994)."Verification,Validation,andConfirmationof
NumericalModelsintheEarthSciences"(PDF).Science263(5147):641646.Bibcode:1994Sci...263..641O.
doi:10.1126/science.263.5147.641seenote25
45.PaulPojman(2009)."ErnstMach".TheStanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy.California:StanfordUniversity.
ISSN10955054.Retrieved20160224.
46.Lee,M.S.Y.(2002)."Divergentevolution,hierarchyandcladistics".Zool.Scripta31(2):217219.doi:10.1046/j.1463
6409.2002.00101.x.(subscriptionrequired)
47.Sober,Elliot(1998).ReconstructingthePast:Parsimony,Evolution,andInference(2nded.).MassachusettsInstituteof
Technology:TheMITPress.p.7.ISBN0262691442.
48.Crick1988,p.146.
49."EncyclopediaofPhilosophy".Stanford.Retrieved20160224.|contribution=ignored(help)
50.DaleTIrvin&ScottWSunquist.HistoryofWorldChristianMovementVolume,I:EarliestChristianityto1453,p.434.
ISBN9781570753961.
51."SUMMATHEOLOGICA:TheexistenceofGod(PrimaPars,Q.2)".Newadvent.org.Retrieved20130326.
52.McDonald2005.
53."Ratzsch,Del".Calvin.Retrieved20160224.
54."EncyclopediaofPhilosophy".Stanford.Retrieved20160224.|contribution=ignored(help)
55.p.282,MmoiresdudocteurF.Antommarchi,oulesderniersmomensdeNapolon(https://books.google.com/books?id=
88xZAAAAcAAJ),vol.1,1825,Paris:BarroisL'Ain
56.Tonry,Michael(2005):ObsolescenceandImmanenceinPenalTheoryandPolicy.ColumbiaLawReview105:1233
1275.PDFfulltext(http://www.columbialawreview.org/pdf/TonryWeb.pdf)
57.ChrisS.WallaceandDavidM.BoultonComputerJournal,Volume11,Issue2,1968Page(s):185194,"Aninformation
measureforclassification."
58.ChrisS.WallaceandDavidL.DoweComputerJournal,Volume42,Issue4,Sep1999Page(s):270283,"Minimum
MessageLengthandKolmogorovComplexity."
59.Nannen,Volker."AshortintroductiontoModelSelection,KolmogorovComplexityandMinimumDescriptionLength"
(PDF).Retrieved20100703.
60."AlgorithmicInformationTheory".
61.PaulM.B.VitnyiandMingLiIEEETransactionsonInformationTheory,Volume46,Issue2,Mar2000Page(s):446
464,"MinimumDescriptionLengthInduction,BayesianismandKolmogorovComplexity."
62.'Occamsrazorasaformalbasisforaphysicaltheory'byAndreiN.Soklakov(http://arxiv.org/pdf/mathph/0009007)
63."[physics/0001020]WhyOccam'sRazor".
64.Solomonoff,Ray(1964)."Aformaltheoryofinductiveinference.PartI.".InformationandControl7(122):1964.
doi:10.1016/s00199958(64)902232.
65.J.Schmidhuber(2006)"TheNewAI:General&Sound&RelevantforPhysics."InB.GoertzelandC.Pennachin,eds.:
ArtificialGeneralIntelligence,pp.177200http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.AI/0302012
66.DavidL.Dowe(2008):ForewordreC.S.WallaceComputerJournal,Volume51,Issue5,Sept2008Pages:523560.
67.DavidL.Dowe(2010):"MML,hybridBayesiannetworkgraphicalmodels,statisticalconsistency,invarianceand
uniqueness.Aformaltheoryofinductiveinference."HandbookofthePhilosophyofScience(HPSVolume7)
PhilosophyofStatistics,Elsevier2010Page(s):901982.
https://wayback.archive.org/web/20140204001435/http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?
doi=10.1.1.185.709&rep=rep1&type=pdf
68.ScottNeedhamandDavidL.Dowe(2001):"MessageLengthasanEffectiveOckham'sRazorinDecisionTree
Induction."Proc.8thInternationalWorkshoponArtificialIntelligenceandStatistics(AI+STATS2001),KeyWest,
Florida,U.S.A.,Jan.2001Page(s):253260
http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~dld/Publications/2001/Needham+Dowe2001_Ockham.pdf
69.RobertT.Carroll."Occam'sRazor".TheSkeptic'sDictionary.Retrieved20160224Lastupdated18February2012
70.Quine,WVO(1961)."Twodogmasofempiricism".Fromalogicalpointofview.Cambridge:HarvardUniversity
Press.pp.2046.ISBN0674323513.
71.ImmanuelKant(1929).NormanKempSmithtransl,ed.TheCritiqueofPureReason.PalgraveMacmillan.p.92.
Retrieved27October2012."Entiumvarietatesnontemereesseminuendas"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

16/18

7/8/2016

Occam'srazorWikipedia,thefreeencyclopedia

Furtherreading
Ariew,Roger(1976).Ockham'sRazor:AHistorical
andPhilosophicalAnalysisofOckham'sPrincipleof
Parsimony.ChampaignUrbana,UniversityofIllinois.
Charlesworth,M.J.(1956)."Aristotle'sRazor".
PhilosophicalStudies(Ireland)6:105112.
doi:10.5840/philstudies1956606.

MacKay,DavidJ.C.(2003).InformationTheory,
InferenceandLearningAlgorithms.Cambridge
UniversityPress.ISBN0521642981.ISBN.
Retrieved20160224.
Maurer,A.(1984)."Ockham'sRazorandChatton's
AntiRazor".MedievalStudies46:463475.

Churchland,PaulM.(1984).Matterand
Consciousness.Cambridge,Massachusetts:MITPress.
ISBN0262530503.ISBN.

McDonald,William(2005)."SrenKierkegaard".
StanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy.Retrieved
20060414.

Crick,FrancisH.C.(1988).WhatMadPursuit:A
PersonalViewofScientificDiscovery.NewYork,New
York:BasicBooks.ISBN0465091377.ISBN.

Menger,Karl(1960)."ACounterpartofOckham's
RazorinPureandAppliedMathematics:Ontological
Uses".Synthese12(4):415428.
doi:10.1007/BF00485426.

Dowe,DavidL.SteveGardnerGrahamOppy
(December2007)."BayesnotBust!WhySimplicityis
noProblemforBayesians".BritishJ.forthe
PhilosophyofScience58(4):709754.
doi:10.1093/bjps/axm033.Retrieved20070924.
Externallinkin|journal=(help)
Duda,RichardO.PeterE.HartDavidG.Stork
(2000).PatternClassification(2nded.).Wiley
Interscience.pp.487489.ISBN0471056693.ISBN.
Epstein,Robert(1984)."ThePrincipleofParsimony
andSomeApplicationsinPsychology".Journalof
MindBehavior5:119130.
Hoffmann,RoaldVladimirI.MinkinBarryK.
Carpenter(1997)."Ockham'sRazorandChemistry".
HYLEInternationalJournalforthePhilosophyof
Chemistry3:328.Retrieved20060414.
Jacquette,Dale(1994).PhilosophyofMind.
EngleswoodsCliffs,NewJersey:PrenticeHall.pp.34
36.ISBN0130309338.ISBN.
Jaynes,EdwinThompson(1994)."ModelComparison
andRobustness".ProbabilityTheory:TheLogicof
Science.ISBN0521592712.
Jefferys,WilliamH.Berger,JamesO.(1991).
"Ockham'sRazorandBayesianStatistics(Preprint
availableas"SharpeningOccam'sRazoronaBayesian
Strop)","(PDF).AmericanScientist80:6472.
Katz,Jerrold(1998).RealisticRationalism.MITPress.
ISBN0262112299.
Kneale,WilliamMarthaKneale(1962).The
DevelopmentofLogic.London:OxfordUniversity
Press.p.243.ISBN0198241836.ISBN.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

Morgan,C.Lloyd(1903)."OtherMindsthanOurs".
AnIntroductiontoComparativePsychology(2nded.).
London:W.Scott.p.59.ISBN0890931712.
Retrieved20060415.
Newton,Isaac(2011)[1726].PhilosophiNaturalis
PrincipiaMathematica(3rded.).London:Henry
Pemberton.ISBN9781603864350.
Nolan,D.(1997)."QuantitativeParsimony".British
JournalforthePhilosophyofScience48(3):329343.
doi:10.1093/bjps/48.3.329.
Pegis,A.C.,translator(1945).BasicWritingsofSt.
ThomasAquinas.NewYork:RandomHouse.p.129.
ISBN0872203808.
Popper,Karl(1992)."7.Simplicity".TheLogicof
ScientificDiscovery(2nded.).London:Routledge.
pp.121132.ISBN8430907114.
RodrguezFernndez,J.L.(1999)."Ockham'sRazor".
Endeavour23(3):121125.doi:10.1016/S0160
9327(99)011990.
Schmitt,GavinC.(2005)."Ockham'sRazorSuggests
Atheism".Archivedfromtheoriginalon20070211.
Retrieved20060415.
Smart,J.J.C.(1959)."SensationsandBrain
Processes".PhilosophicalReview(ThePhilosophical
Review,Vol.68,No.2)68(2):141156.
doi:10.2307/2182164.JSTOR2182164.
Sober,Elliott(1975).Simplicity.Oxford:Oxford
UniversityPress.

17/18

7/8/2016

Occam'srazorWikipedia,thefreeencyclopedia

Sober,Elliott(1981)."ThePrincipleofParsimony"
(PDF).BritishJournalforthePhilosophyofScience32
(2):145156.doi:10.1093/bjps/32.2.145.Archived
fromtheoriginal(PDF)on15December2011.
Retrieved4August2012.
Sober,Elliott(1990)."Let'sRazorOckham'sRazor".In
DudleyKnowles.ExplanationanditsLimits.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.pp.7394.
ISBN.
Sober,Elliott(2002).Zellneretal.,eds."Whatisthe
ProblemofSimplicity?"(PDF).Archivedfromthe
original(PDF)on8November2006.Retrieved4August
2012.

Swinburne,Richard(1997).SimplicityasEvidencefor
Truth.Milwaukee,Wisconsin:MarquetteUniversity
Press.ISBN087462164X.
Thorburn,W.M.(1918)."TheMythofOccam's
Razor".Mind27(107):345353.
doi:10.1093/mind/XXVII.3.345.
Williams,GeorgeC.(1966).Adaptationandnatural
selection:ACritiqueofsomeCurrentEvolutionary
Thought.Princeton,NewJersey:PrincetonUniversity
Press.ISBN0691026157.ISBN.

Swinburne,Richard(1997).SimplicityasEvidencefor

Externallinks
WhatisOccam'sRazor?(http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkok
WikimediaCommonshas
s/Faq/General/occam.html)ThisessaydistinguishesOccam'sRazor
mediarelatedtoOccam's
(usedfortheorieswithidenticalpredictions)fromthePrincipleof
razor.
Parsimony(whichcanbeappliedtotheorieswithdifferent
predictions).
Wikiquotehasquotations
Skeptic'sDictionary:Occam'sRazor(http://skepdic.com/occam.htm
relatedto:Williamof
l)
Occam
Ockham'sRazor(http://www.galileanlibrary.org/manuscript.php?pos
tid=43832),anessayatTheGalileanLibraryonthehistoricaland
Lookupparsimonyin
philosophicalimplicationsbyPaulNewall.
Wiktionary,thefree
TheRazorintheToolbox:Thehistory,use,andabuseofOccams
dictionary.
razor(http://www.theness.com/index.php/therazorinthetoolbox/),
byRobertNovella
NIPS2001Workshop"FoundationsofOccam'sRazorandparsimonyinlearning"(http://web.archive.org/we
b/20030212134637/http://www.rii.ricoh.com:80/~stork/OccamWorkshop.html)
SimplicityatStanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/)
Occam'sRazor(http://planetmath.org/?op=getobj&from=objects&id=6371)atPlanetMath.org.
Disproofofparsimonyasageneralprincipleinscience(http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.4932)
Retrievedfrom"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Occam%27s_razor&oldid=727347205"
Categories: Adages Reductionism Heuristics Principles Criticalthinking Philosophyofscience
ArgumentsagainsttheexistenceofGod Ontology Razors(philosophy)
Thispagewaslastmodifiedon28June2016,at11:16.
TextisavailableundertheCreativeCommonsAttributionShareAlikeLicenseadditionaltermsmayapply.
Byusingthissite,youagreetotheTermsofUseandPrivacyPolicy.Wikipediaisaregisteredtrademark
oftheWikimediaFoundation,Inc.,anonprofitorganization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

18/18