Occam's razor
Occam's razor is a principle often mentioned by sceptics
as a justification for their debunking views. Briefly stated, the principle is
that where you have two theories you should adapt the one that is simpler, that
is, that requires less assumptions. An example that sceptics often give is that
if you see a tree burned in a forest you may hypothesize that it was caused by
lightening or by a landing flying saucer. Occum’s razor, so they say, is that
a lightning strike is the simpler of the two hypotheses. Inherent in this are
assumptions about the world. In order to understand the world you make assumptions
about how it works and then build up your understanding based on these assumptions.
This is particularly apparent when you consider that some medical schools interpret
this as "When you hear hoof beats, think horses, not zebras". If you were living
in Africa maybe you should think zebras, not horses.
Occum’s razor may be interpreted as saying “when you have made up your mind as
to how the universe works, don't let facts confuse you”. Another interpretation
often mentioned by sceptics is “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”.
So for example, a scientist may conduct an experiment to test whether extra sensory
perception (ESP) is possible. A common method would be to have a person in one
room (person A) looking at special cards and someone in another room (person B)
attempting to guess what card is being viewed. The sceptics argue that if it is
possible that person A could let person B know what card is being viewed by another
method than ESP (for example by means of a hidden radio) than this is the most
logical method. It is 'simpler' than assuming that ESP exists. Note that the sceptic
does not need evidence that a radio was used, simply that it is possible that
a radio could have been used.
If this thinking were limited to a few fanatical members of sceptic societies
than it would be of merely passing interest. After all there are many eccentric
and bizarre views in the world and a few more would be of no account. However
this way of thinking has taken such a hold of the so-called ‘scientific’ establishment
that it has become almost impossible for anyone associated with them to break
ranks. Huge sums of money and the resources of universities and research establishments
are tied into supporting the status quo. Scientists (in fact pseudo scientists
as these members of the scientific establishment don't necessarily think scientifically)
are the arbiters of what can and cannot be studied and where money (often taxpayer’s
money) can be spent. As a result science has not really moved forward in the last
30 or so years. There have been great progress by engineers and technologists
but the millions of dollars spent on searching for gravity waves, on hot fusion
or so-called artificial intelligence have yielded nothing. The only progress has
been made by mavericks who have often been opposed by the scientific establishment.
In fact, this trend goes back to the mid 1800’s.
Examples
include:
- The Telephone. ("England has plenty of small boys to run messages.")
- The electric light ("A completely idiotic idea.")
- The generation of electricity
- Heavier than air flying machines
