What is your understanding of Occam's razor, and how exactly does it unequivocally negate all conspiracy theories?

It’s pretty simple. Examine your own life and see if it isn’t most often true. (I’d ay more but I am playing poker…be back in a few)

It just means that the simplest answer is probably the right one. Conspiracy theories don’t fit because they are not that simple and take careful planning and imagination.

Well, I don’t actually accept the premise in the second part of your question that, ”...it unequivocally negate(s) all conspiracy theories.”

To simply cite it, is taking a large logic shortcut. On the other hand, I do think it has bearing on and relevance to the unlikelihood of the validity of conspiracy theories.

I like this article, specifically this passage:

“Another expression of this rule is, “entities are not to be multiplied”, which meant that all unnecessary acts or constituents in the subject being analyzed should be eliminated. His contemporaries described Occam as, “dissecting every question as with a razor”. The word “razor” was used to describe the shaving away of all unnecessary assumptions in order to reach the simplest explanation.”

I find it applicable to negating conspiracy theories, because human culture does not perform well in vast, complex constructs of plans or complex executions. Conspiracy theories rely on a number of those teetering constructs and, thus, seem unlikely to me. You can’t really generalize, but there are some commonalities.

Among them:
—No reputable mainstream institution accepts or reports on the conspiracy theory.

—Obvious answers and straightforward reports are routinely dismissed by conspiracy theorists as “whitewashes”, “insufficient”, or “ignoring facts”.

—Concurrently, the conspiracy theorists themselves often are guilty of “ignoring facts” and of selective acceptance of data.

—Often, conspiracy theories rely on huge secret organizations. This defies logic with regard to human nature, in which secrets almost always out. Someone tells. Someone sells out or as Shakespeare put it, “Murder will out.”

—Governments, like other bureaucracies, do not perform normal operations perfectly or efficiently. It is not logical that they would perform cover-ups without error and completely efficiently so that the cover-up was successful.

Yay yay Marina. Yay!

Kev: whoa!!

Marina is back!!!! WAHOO!!

I’m giving you a GQ for “Please show your work”

@Marina, GA. Does your last point, though, not cut both ways? Doesn’t a conspiracy theory primarily take root in the evidence of an erroneous, inefficient, and/or unsuccessful cover up?

Do no (huge) secret organizations exist despite human fallibility with keeping secrets?

Have no reputable mainstream institutions reported on any conspiracy theories, and are they (assuming you mean journalism institutions) not charged with simply reporting the facts as opposed to accepting or rejecting a theory?

Also, (assuming I understand you correctly) does not the statement “human culture does not perform well in vast, complex constructs of plans or complex executions” bias that culture toward simplistic explanations for difficult-to-explain phenomena (e.g. lone gunmen). Or is that statement more an argument that vast, complex, and/or teetering plans and executions more than likely do not exist in human culture?

My understanding of it is that it’s just another term to make people feel smart… like those with advanced knowledge of the various fallacies but no real argument to provide. Why else would people go so far in depth trying to explain such a simple idea? Back in my Navy days we would have said using this term would be considered “nuking it”.. that is.. utilizing far more brain power than is required to accomplish a thought.

It doesn’t unequivocally negate all conspiracy theories as it is just a funny little curiosity to toy with.. If anything what it negates is itself.. because the most simple thing to do is to trash the concept of Occam’s Razor entirely.

<bows down to Marina>

Here is a simple application of Occam’s Razor.

One can support creationsim by conjecturing that the Universe was created some 5,000 years ago but was done so in a way as to make it seem much older. This assumption can not be disproved, but it adds no predictive or explanatory power to the assumption that the Universe is as old as it appears to be, so we choose the simpler explanation.

By the way, the originator of Occam’s Razor, William of Occam, was a Medieval theologian.

@LostinParadise yes, but did he use shaving cream?

Are some of you ‘over thinking’ this a little?

First off, I think the key premise in the idea of Occam’s razor is “all things being equal”. If there is any reasoning at all that would allude to the more complicated theory being the correct one, then since all things are not equal between the two theories you are perfectly valid in assuming the more complicated (or conspiracy) theory.

Here’s an example. Assume someone leaves their house for a little while and when they come back a book that they thought they had left on their desk is missing. One answer to this dilemma could be that an apparition is living in the house and when you left it moved the book. Another logical assumption could be that someone broke into your house and stole your book.A third theory could be that someone you’re living with went into your room and borrowed your book without you knowing.

Occam’s razor is going to say in this situation that the theory that involves the least amount or degree of premises is the most suitable theory with all things are equal. Therefore, the first theory would have to posit the existence of ghosts that also can have physical effects on this world. If no windows are broken in your house, the second would have to assume that someone broke into your house without physically breaking anything and only stealing a book rather than a computer. Now although you don’t know for sure if anyone else you live with would have taken your book, the third is the most simple explanation since it is the easiest explanation you could come up with. Now if new evidence comes into play such as remembering that you had left it outside and your roomate tells you it wasn’t there when they got home, then maybe it did get stolen.

Basically there is no reason to naturally ASSUME a more complicated theory over the simpler one, specifically in terms of logical premises, when the conclusion is the same and there is no difference between the two theories prima facie.

Therefore, in terms of conspiracy theories, or as in my example, parapsychology, it does not necessarily rule them out, but when using Occam’s razor, you are going to be expected to have sound reasoning for doing so.

Hope that helps :)

I’d probably start with wondering if the book was really on the desk when I left.