Occam's Razor?

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I think that Occam’s Razor dulls itself in hindsight, not being able to effectively predict what scientific discoveries it would have hindered or outright prevented if these scientists in question had actually listened to what Occam’s Razor said they could or could not accomplish by their scientific inquiry.

Anybody aware of examples in scientific history where Occam’s Razor would have actually prevented a scientific discovery if the scientist in question had assumed that one should embrace the less complicated formulation of more than one equally valid explanations for a phenomenon?

 

[Mirdath]

Anybody aware of examples in scientific history where Occam’s Razor would have actually prevented a scientific discovery if the scientist in question had assumed that one should embrace the less complicated formulation of more than one equally valid explanations for a phenomenon?

I’m not aware of any.

Occam does not prohibit ‘what if’ though – you can formulate hypotheses until you turn blue, but when it comes to experiment then the Razor comes into play. If you add more components to the experiment, you have to reformulate the hypothesis or you won’t be able to tell whether the result, positive or negative, came from your original hypothesis or from the extras you threw in the pot.

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

Entities should not multiply beyond necessity

That’s all it says – strip down your over-complex experiments until they test only the core of your hypothesis, otherwise your results are invalid. And it can be used to back-test as well: if your results are inexplicable, you can use it to go back and check what unnecessary parts have been included. That’s an inexact use, but it can usually give a pretty solid idea.

As to more than one – Newton and Leibniz developed calculus simultaneously, and there have been many other cases like this in mathematics. The Razor does not prohibit alternate paths.