Key Word Search
by term...

by definition...

for letter: "O"
Results

Occam's Razor
 
Ockham, William of
 
Ockham's Razor
 
OI_E
 
OI_I
 
Outward Propagation
 



Unless otherwise indicated, all glossary content is:
(C) Copyright 2008-2014
Dominic John Repici
~ ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ~
No part of this Content may be copied without the express written permision of Dominic John Repici.













































 



 
Ockham, William of

 
William of Ockham (also: "Sir William of Occam") - A 14th century philosopher who is best known for what has come to be known as "ockham's razor" (or "occam's razor"), which is almost always mis-characterized in common usage. His French peers misspelled the name of his town: Occam, and, like the town of Ockham, that misspelling continues to persist to this day.

1285 - 1349
default image for entry
No photograph available

. . . . . . .
Logic vs. Marketing

William's original advice (see some quotes below) was based on sound, logical reasoning, while the commonly promoted mis-characterization of his advice is little more than a fashion statement.


. . . . . . .
Actual (Translated) Quotes:

"Plurality should not be assumed without necessity."
        (or: "Plurality should not be posited without necessity.")
"It is vain to do with more what can be done with less."
"Entities must not be unnecessarily multiplied."(but see resources)


. . . . . . .
Perhaps a Metaphor

Your car is displaying a very specific set of symptoms. It is making a funny, but distinct noise, and it is running poorly in a very distinct way.

You're not a "car guy," but you do have an interest, and you suspect it could be one of three possible things:
  1. the fuel-filter,
  2. the air-filter, or
  3. the distributor-cap.

But you're not sure which one...

Are the quotes listed above starting to make sense to you yet?
  • If you change all three parts at once (they are relatively inexpensive parts) you will never know which of the three components was actually responsible for the experimentally observed phenomenon (running badly, and making a distinct noise). Depending on your goal, this may be fine.

  • If you want to learn which one of these three suspected causes is the actual cause of the specific symptoms (the observed phenomena), you must change each of the three suspected parts out ONE AT A TIME, and try the car after each one.

That's it. Read the quotes and draw your own conclusion. It's not that difficult really, but it has been completely scrummed, by the promotion and marketing types.


. . . . . . .
Variations On a Theme

The above explanation was about as simple as you can get it (well, almost). What if you have, say, 128 things you suspect it could be? Just like before, you aren't sure which one it is. We can employ William's advice to great effect in this situation:

At the start of this exercise, your "bad group" will contain all 128 possibilities. That is, all the parts you suspect it might be.
  1. Start by dividing the "bad group" of parts in half. The "bad group," meaning the group that contains the problem-part.
  2. Swap out the first half of the bad group, and leave the second half in the car.
  3. Test the car. If the problem is solved, the first half of the "bad group" contains the problem part, and becomes the new bad group. Otherwise the second half is the new bad group.

  4. Put back the original parts, and go back to step 1.

In the above example, where we started with 128 possible parts, a maximum of seven iterations will be required to divide it down to a single part.
  1. 2 groups of 64
  2. 2 groups of 32
  3. 2 groups of 16
  4. 2 groups of 8
  5. 2 groups of 4
  6. 2 groups of 2
  7. 2 groups of 1

Electronics engineers and programmers will recognize this as "successive approximation." It is used to great effect in many applications, for example, converting analog signals into digital signals.



. . . . . . .
Ongoing Spin

Those who are most heavily invested in the "fashion statement" interpretation of these quotes will tell you that all metaphors and analogies used to explain concepts are, by nature, straw-men, or worse, reification. Furthermore, they will very convincingly argue, that reifications, and straw-men are logical fallacies (they aren't in any practical sense, btw). So, be prepared to be convinced—by people whose only real gift is in the persuasive arts—that the concepts related above in metaphor are invalid from the outset, precisely because they have been related in metaphor.

Similarly, some may also claim the existence of "studies" that "prove" or "convincingly indicate" the validity of the fashion statement. If you are not able to see through that particular ploy, I have some very rare, and special invisible clothes I'd be willing to part with for the right price :-).



. . . . . . .
How To Spot a Marketing Concept

Generally a marketing concept will be amorphous and pastel... a Rorschach test for the mind if you will. Ideally, a marketing concept should be something that only provides enough structure so that people will fill in the details by mentally painting their own ideas and understanding onto it. This lets them feel vindicated and reinforced in their own beliefs. The Ockham's Razor fashion-statement, when first presented, will usually be presented to bolster a flailing debating position on a web-site or in a forum discussion. At this point it will be presented as a logically, and scientifically sound concept for determining which "theory," among two competing theories must be the right one (based, remember, on applying this "scientifically and logically sound principle" to the matter at hand). In this morphology the fashion-statement reads:

"When faced with two competing theories, the one which is simpler is most likely to be right."



This "scientific" validity angle will be further reinforced with authoritatively related proclamations like this one, which are shouted from the blog-tops:

"Occam's razor [. . . ] forms the basis of the scientific method."




. . . . . . .
How to Spot A Fashion Statement

Marketing concepts are a super-set of fashion statements, and often degrade into mere fashion statements. This one is a very good example of how that happens. Fashion embraces flux, and changes with the whims of the time and current societal norms.

Somebody who cares enough about things like science, and the search for the truth might point out that the above statement can easily be demonstrated to be invalid, simply based on observed and recorded history (see resources below). If they do, however, the fashion statement will simply morph into something different (i.e., "new," "fresh," "exciting," "sophisticated," "hip") such as (for example):

"When faced with two identical theories we should pick the one which is easiest to test, so that we don't waste limited resources"


If the passionate one is foolish enough at this point, to point out that this has nothing to do with determining the scientific correctness of a theory, but is merely an economic theory regarding use of finite resource (the law of diminishing returns, expressed more colloquially as "pick the low hanging fruit first") s/he will simply be labeled as unfashionable. That is, if s/he didn't get that this was the latest thing, it is because s/he is not "in touch" with current thinking on the matter, and therefor, has nothing to offer to the ongoing "movement."




. . . . . . .
In Other Words?


Opinion alert. The following is an attempt to more precisely represent Ockham's original advice. It is forwarded in the spirit of not criticizing something without offering a sincere attempt at a solution.

This is just a first shot and improvements are welcome and sought. It is recognized, also, that while the target (the concept) isn't moving, the gun (the language used to relate the concept) is.

"Always express things using the most general representation possible for the context in which the representation is being used."


But, Einstein might say, not more general!



. . . . . . .
Resources
  • Article on William of Ockham at Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

  • Hickam's Dictum

  • Invalidating the pre-morphed fashion-statement (e.g.,):
    • All flying birds have feathers, therefor the secret to HTA flight must be feathers.
    • Charles Darwin and his contemporaries stated that cells are nothing more than "simple globs of protoplasm."
    • The idea that the crust of the earth was thin plates floating on top of a molten blob was considered ludicrous. That the earth could be anything other than a solid ball with a molten center was not even considered to be within the realm of sanity.
    • A person's intelligence, it was thought, could be precisely measured by making physical measurements of their skull. Seems logical right?
    • Heavier than air flight was "settled science." It was obviously not possible.
    • Surgeons, Joseph Lister, and Ignacio Semmelweis were both considered clinically insane, because they thought that surgeons should wash their hands before operating. Surgeons needed to do this, they thought, in order to get rid of tiny, unseen, organisms that live, and grow on their hand.
    • A hub-and-spoke based package delivery system that can deliver packages in one day? Son, listen, you're thinking this to death. That's far too complicated a scheme to ever work.
    • This list is never ending...

Also: People Index        

 
 




Web-based glossary software: (c) Creativyst, 2001-2014