Bootstrapping Simplicity (A Priori Justifications for Ockham's Razor)

An explanation of the a priori justifications for Ockham's Razor and the principle of parsimony, including theological, basic facts, and the principles of rationality.
Sponsors: NBA_Ruby, Antybodi, Federico Galvão, Mike Gloudemans, Andy Capone, Andreas Froestl, The Jack Bancroft, Jakey, Andrew Sullivan, Eugene SY, Tyler James, Antoinemp1, Dennis Sexton, Joao Sa, Joshua Furman, SirSpammenot Multitude, Ploney, Avatar, Diéssica, GhostlyYorick, Hendrick McDonald, horace chan, Will DeRousse, Star Gazer, Paul Linkogle, Julian Seidl, Doǧan Çetin, Thomas Kristic, Panos Tsivi, Jesse Willette and Daniel West. Thanks for your support on Patreon! If you want to become a patron, follow this link: / carneades
Here are some videos you might enjoy:
The 100 Days of Logic ( • 100 Days of Logic (Full) )
History of Philosophy ( • Four Weeks of Famous P... )
Ancient Philosophers & Zeno’s Paradoxes ( • Schools of Ancient Gre... )
ExPhi Experimental Philosophy ( / @experimentalphilosoph... )
Map of Philosophy ( • The Map Of Philosophy )
More videos with Carneades ( / @carneadesofcyrene )
Philosophy by Topic:
Epistemology: • Epistemology
Metaphysics: • Metaphysics
Political Philosophy: • Political Philosophy
Philosophy of Religion: • Philosophy of Religion
Ancient Philosophy: • Ancient Philosophy
Philosophy of Science: • Philosophy of Science
Philosophy of Language: • Philosophy of Language
Philosophy of Art/Aesthetics: • Philosophy of Art (Aes...
Buy stuff with Zazzle: www.zazzle.com...
Follow us on Twitter: @CarneadesCyrene / carneadescyrene
Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Collier-MacMillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Dictionary of Continental Philosophy, and more! (#Simplicity #Ockham)

[@InventiveHarvest]

Applying Occam's razor to a-priori assertions is questionable on Wednesdays and other days of the week but especially if the moon is full and made of cheese. Otherwise, it is still questionable but only in an anti-realist sense, except on Tuesdays or other days of the week. It is raining. Albert Einstein thought about using Occam"s razor, but didn't have a calendar. Additionally, using Occam's razor on dialethist arguments is still questionable during the daytime or at night.

[@IntegralDeLinha]

I think there is an a priori justification for Occam's Razor. If you reduce the number of independent causal factors, you make the observation more likely, so the theory that postulates less adjustable parameters will be more likely. For instance, if your computer and your air-conditioner stop at the same time, which is more likely? That both failed at the same time for independent reasons or that you ran out of power? I believe we can agree that the theory that you house lacks electricity at the moment is more likely than the theory that independent reasons caused both your air-conditioner and your computer to shut down simmultaneously. Single cause theory allows for 2 possible states: both equipments working or both not working. Independent causes theory allows for 4 possible states: both working, both not working, air-conditioner ON and computer OFF, air-conditioner OFF and computer ON. The state that you are observing represents 25% of the possibilities that the independent causes theory allows and 50% of the possibilities that the single cause theory allows, so the evidence is more likely on the single cause theory, which means the single cause theory is more likely given the evidence. Simpler theories (simpler in this specific sense) are intrinsecally more likely, hence we have a priori justification for Occam's Razor.

[@_WeDontKnow_]

"If you reduce the number of independent causal factors, you make the observation more likely" is an assumption, also it's sometimes tough to decide one causal factor vs. many causal factors without being arbitrary at some point. The way we divide and categorize things is useful for communication, there's no objectivity to it.

[@it3590]

I am unable to access the intro to philosophy course on your website.

[@RENATVS_IV]

None of these arguments convinced me 😅 For me it's a guide to simplify or pick the simplest theories, but as you said, our main guide is a true and a rational theory, not the one that looks better, the prettiest or most convenient one 😅

[@Pfhorrest]

This seems to neglect the possibility of some variety of the Razor being implied by some actually justified epistemic principles. For example, as I've argued in more depth under previous videos in this series, parsimony can be understood as a sort of epistemic efficiency, as getting more out (in terms of predictions made) from believing less. Probability can similarly be understood as epistemic prudence, as the odds of success or failure in a belief, where the aim of belief is truth so a successful belief is one that turns out to be true, and a failed belief is one that turns out to be false. Efficiency is an important aspect of prudence: if you can put less into some endeavor to achieve the same effects, you minimize your risk of loss in that endeavor while maintaining the same opportunity for gains. Consequently, parsimony is an important aspect of probability: if you can commit less in your beliefs, as in only assume a little, yet get the same predictions out, you minimize your risk of believing falsely (only the little bit you assumed is at risk), while preserving the opportunity for your beliefs to turn out true. In short, in exactly the same way that efficient actions are more prudent, parsimonious beliefs are more probable.

[@RENATVS_IV]

Well explained. I liked the way you lay it out

[@Pfhorrest]

Thank you @@RENATVS_IV!

[@88tongued]

"false" and "else" (3:48 "elsewhere") sound like "faults" and "elts" ("etlswhere"). I kindly request you practice the correct pronunciation. I love your videos, and I would really appreciate the undistracted experience that would result from correction.

[@jffryh]

If you find that an apple falls from a tree accelerating at about 10 meters per second squared, it does no good to add the hypothesis that it's an invisible magical elf making the apple move in the way that it moves. It's unnecessary

[@tomholroyd7519]

Theological argument is very much like the anthropic principle

[@cliffordhodge1449]

Parsimony is an epistemological desideratum, a theory of theories, which can be formulated as the minimization of theoretical entities. If a theory with two theoretical entities accounts for all the evidence with both entities featuring in the causal explanation, then any additional entity will be rejected as gratuitous, non-functional, arbitrary, and so Ockham's Razor favors the 2-entity theory because the 3rd proposed entity cannot be justified. To take an obvious case, if I propose to expand the original theory by claiming the unicorn is the third theoretical entity, I will be challenged to explain why, how the explanatory power is thereby increased. My only response is that although the unicorn has nothing to do with the set of phenomena in question, I find the new theory appealing, and the unicorn is merely a place-holder for a more robust theory, it seems I am somewhat confused about the scientific enterprise altogether.

[@Darryl_Frost]

'the world' (nature) will not do anything that it does not have to or need to do. Like a computer program being made up of a few simple rules repeated over and over again to achieve a variety of results. I believe the 'laws of nature' are fundamentally very simple (like a computer machine code instruction), and that simplicity gives raise to an overall complex system. nature is simple, find the fundamental functionality and you will understand the complex. If you know the computer instruction set, you can decompile the complex application.

[@GottfriedLeibnizYT]

Rejecting Ockham's Razor is a slippery slope toward relativism.