Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"):
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem,
which translates to:
entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.
As we go through life we encounter a lot of information. Most of us have probably been swindled at some time or other. Or we carved out a path in life based on faulty information. Or we repeated something we heard only to find out it was false. Or we even lied to someone, or deliberately deceived someone, maybe to protect ourselves or make us look good in a situation.
And even in the world of ideas we encounter theories we find suspect. Many people cultivate an attitude of "healthy skepticism" about everything. It is a way of protecting oneself from the damages of wrong information.
There are three tried and true methods of confronting information that can help us to be careful about what we believe:
1. Find the simplest explanation.
2. Consider the source.
3. How likely is it?
Number 1 ~ The simplest explanation (Ockham's Razor) is the bedrock of Modernism and science. In fact, it has brought us into an age of skepticism so complete that nothing can stand before this steamroller. We can question anything, even God, and arrive at nothing.
Still, it is a very useful tool in arriving at truth. Strip the problem down to its simplest explanation and work from there.
Number 2 ~ What credentials does the person have who is making the assertion? If a garbage collector is telling me I have appendicitis, his information is highly suspect. But if a doctor, trained to detect and isolate health problems, tells me I have it, I need to listen. Or, if I need advice on the stock market, I shouldn't go and ask an artist (especially a con-artist).
Number 3 ~ What is the likelihood that what I am being told is the truth? Is it likely that Chicken Little is telling the truth when he says, "The sky is falling."
Can we still get into trouble using these simple tools? Sure. Our world is rife with potential for mishap. But, in a world where knowledge and information are coming at us like a freight train out of control, we can sure beat a straighter path by staying alert and using these tools. It's OK to question information.
In the story of Adam and Eve, Eve had an opportunity to use discernment when the serpent gave her testable information. The simplest explanation was that the info the serpent was giving was incorrect. Weighed against what God said, it did not stack up.
And who was telling her this? A snake. How trustworthy are snakes? And how likely was it that she would become like God simply by eating the fruit?
Her name should have been nai-Eve. But some sources have it that she was a blond. If those sources are correct.
Still, the blond assertion makes sense. Why? Well, we all know blonds are dumb, right?
Moral of the story: Never listen to a snake before you've gotten dressed.
3 comments:
I like these suggestions. But let us remember that "truth is sometimes stranger than fiction." And someone once said, "even a fool is right some of the time."
and it boiled down to never listen to a snake before getting dressed... I am glad you are not Ann Landers... LOL
So am I. She's dead. She died of advice exhaustion.
Post a Comment