Doesn't this post finally say that we have carried the discussion too
far?
John Lunn
"P. N. Heidenstrom" wrote:
> In trying to explain Suzy Hamilton's fall in the
> 1500 at the Sudney Olympics, someone suggested:
>
> Apply Ocham's Razor, which states that
> in nature the simplest explanation is
> most often correct.
>
> That's simplistic.
>
> In simple terms, what Ockham said was that where
> a number of separate phenomena are observed, if
> all of them can be explained by making "n"
> assumptions, and equally well explained by making
> "<n" assumptions, there is no reason to prefer
> the greater number ("n").
>
> It is not a way to prove anything - just an
> obvious, commonsense way to choose between
> ALTERNATIVE proofs, not conflicting proofs.
>
> The principle applies only to multiple phenomena.
> If all the runners in Hamilton's race at Sydney
> had fallen in a similar way, then of course
> everyone would have looked for a single explanation,
> and not have bothered listening to a different
> explanation for each runner. Ockham's Razor is
> telling us we would be right, that's all.
>
> In any case, there don't appear to be any two
> commentators who agree on the reason for
> Hamilton's fall, so there are no explanations to
> choose between.
