In 14th century England a Franciscan monk known as William of Ockham wrote down a rule for enquiry into all things ecclesiastical and secular. It became known as Occam's razor, and "razor" here means an aphorism, an axiomatic statement of the obvious. If you want to think of it as "shaving" off the silly explanations from the realms of pseudo-science, fascist ideology and health foods, that's a good start.
The simplest explanation for a phenomenon is usually the correct one. In medical parlance, there is the example of the zebra effect where the admonition is that if you hear hoofbeats you should look for horses, not zebras. And so students are advised to think of what is the most likely explanation for the observed medical condition rather than some more esoteric cause.
This would hold true in international affairs, where the responsibility for an action should be ascribed to a simple motive rather than some more complex constellation of reasons. And so invasion say, on the part of Russia, or on the part of Israel into land occupied by other entities should be set down to mere greed, desire for territorial expansion or assertion of power by a leader and other simple reasonings in that domain rather than long historical narratives.
Here's the condensed Wiki-referenced definition.
Occam's razor is a problem-solving principle, a heuristic, or rule of thumb to favor explanations that are the simplest, all other things being equal.
It's a guiding tool, not a proof, used across fields like science, medicine, and philosophy to make more likely choices when faced with multiple potential explanations for the same data.
Key aspects:
Simplicity:
Prefer explanations that are less complicated, with fewer steps or components.
Fewer Assumptions:
Choose explanations with the fewest assumptions, esp. about unproven concepts.
Parsimony:
The principle advocates for economy in explanations, avoiding the multiplication of entities or causes beyond what is necessary.
How it works:
When faced with multiple explanations for something, Occam's razor suggests:
In medicine, a doctor with a patient showing common cold symptoms will typically assume it is a cold, rather than a rare and complex disease.
Limitations:
Rule of Thumb, Not a Law:
Occam's razor is not a definitive proof. Simplicity doesn't guarantee truth.
Needs Data:
It should be applied after collecting sufficient data. Complex phenomena may require complex, but accurate, explanations.
Underdetermination:
In science, there can be multiple, competing theories that equally explain observed data, a situation called underdetermination, which Occam's razor helps to navigate by suggesting a preference for simpler hypotheses.
So, beware the oversimplification trap. Sometimes, especially with complicated issues, a more complex set of explanations needs to be considered. There are some current news stories to which the principal could be applied in order to clarify motive and consequence.
Israeli response to Hamas-led attack of Oct. 7, 2023:
It provided the excuse for the extremist right-wing-supported power clique of Netanyahu to annihilate all Palestinians and occupy the entire area.
vs
It was a necessarily strong response to the barbaric incursion of an avowed extremist organization with no regard for human life bent on the utter destruction of Israel, the lone democratic outpost in a misogynistic, anti-semitic part of the world.
The murder of Charlie Kirk and public response to that event:
A couageous Christian leader emblematic of the finest qualities of leadership, compassion and vision was murdered at the instigation of forces opposed to his party's stand on the implementation of Christian values in government.
vs
A cruel, racist, misogynistic hate-monger was murdered by a confused young man.
Those are the major news stories of these times. The narrative around Kirk's murder will pale in time in comparison with the death toll in Gaza, but as of now - Sept. 2025 - it's a big one. Some of the seven Canadian politicians (NDP) who refused to participate in a standing ovation following a eulogy in the House by a Conservative MP received death threats.
I could spend lots of blog space ranting on about just those two issues, but my position on both is pretty clear. Here's some other stories or issues where Occam could be fruitfully channeled (the old monk, William of Ockham, died in 1348). He wrote in Latin but here's the translation, a perfect example of parsimony of expression if ever there was one. I'll try to remember it.
"Plurality must never be posited without necessity."
Say that with a mouthful of crackers.
Regarding weight loss and exercise and ageing brains, we get old and ugly and stupid. Hey, blame Occam; I'm usually much more tactful.
All the health-store hyperbolic spiels aside, it seems that keeping the body moving to whatever degree is possible, eating smaller plant-based diets, hydrating with water rather than alcohol and maintaining social engagement with people and the world will go a long way to having us be healthy and happy. I'm fat.
More vitamin pills will not do anything except produce expensive pee.
More scotch will not help me sleep better.
More fries with my steak will not cancel the cholesterol.
I hate it. Too bad. (Gawd, this Occam stuff is addictive)
Regarding education, it should be free to all who can use it from trades to artists to scientists to thinkers and social tinkers. What would happen if all post-secondary education suddenly became free on the contractual understanding that recipients would take wage-earning jobs in housing-subsidized remote locations for a specified period of time? Seen it, heard about it, could be done.
On a related subject, curricula should be provided under guidance of people with expertise in designated fields. We know lots about child development and I haven't read anything about the educational value of forced prayer rituals or the banning of books by recognized authors. Curiosity always trumps coercion unless we're talking coercion at the point of a gun or threat of pain, but these are kids we're dealing with here. In a (hopefully) civilized setting.
About income, no one should have to work at jobs that will not pay enough to let them be housed and fed and participate in the life of their community. This means that people should not have their wages subsidized by tips and that along with a minimum wage there could be a maximum wage. Yes, I do believe that entrepreneurship by those risking security and cash should be rewarded - to an extent. We can talk about that.
Anecdote warning!!
There we were in New Zealand paying for our meal at the cash register and I commented on the fact that it was nice not to have the electronic tab suggest a level of gratuity. Cashier responded that, "There's a Royal Lifesaving Society donation box here if you want, and I think there's an SPCA box about somewhere". Further conversation revealed that she and her boyfriend both had minimum-wage jobs but that they could afford a nice apartment, although they were considering a move to Australia where the minmum wage was higher and a trades education would be subsidized.
On politics, politicians and social infrastructure really are necessary. Countries don't just run themselves, and as various people are said to have said: Democracy is a terrible system of government unless you compare it to anything else. That means that the "demos" (us-all) have to be engaged. It can be done. As many others, mostly schoolteachers, have said, "Talk amongst yourselves".
That's it. I like to think I have wonderful solutions to so many of life's problems, but so do you and that's a good thing. I reposted a piece by Ron Howard that says these things much better (more succinctly - thanks Ockham) than I. My soapbox or pulpit is never far away and I have an overgrown garden to look after. Voltaire told me to.
C'mon, you remember his little book, Candide. Here's a closing story. It's about boobs and Occam's injunction on brevity adopted by my great aunt - if it looks dirty, don't go any further.
I was helping Aunt Emily who was clearing out some books and I asked about a copy she had of that particular text. The old soul almost hated to handle the thing, and she told me, "You are old enough, I suppose, to look at it. I always thought Mr. Voltaire was more of a gentleman, but I was disappointed when I opened his book".
Well, that was enough to grab the interest of any 18-year old and I stashed it for later perusal. When I did open the little volume, I found Auntie had only got a little way in as evidenced by the fact that the pages were still joined. Many books back then were often printed like that and purchasers would just slit the leaves to read the work. There was the title page, the copyright and publication information and an illustration with tissue-paper covering and that was as far as she had gone. The picture said it all.
Ok, here's the story. Candide is a naive young fellow who with his sweetheart is a student of the philosopher, Pangloss whose motto is, "We live in the best of all possible worlds at the best of all possible times". There's lots more but you can go consult Wikipedia if you like. The basic plot and the theme that has elevated Candide to a status of some renown in the canon of western literature is this: Candide and his sweetheart are subjected to the most horiffic treatment by tyrants and pirates and slaveowners and all sorts of evildoers and when they finally drag themselves home to France and confront their old mentor, he maintains that it is true that we live in the best of all etc. BUT also that …
Il faut que nous cultivons nos jardins. (We must look after our own gardens)
He was thinking of my patio I know.
The illustration with its tissue paper cover still in place showed Candide's lady lashed to a mast with vicious-looking pirates grabbing at her bare breasts. I think it was the breasts that stopped my dear maiden aunt. She had closed the little book and all of the remaining pages had remained uncut, probably to seal in any more smutty illustrations. I looked straight off, but there weren't any. Smutty illustrations, I mean. What did you expect of an 18-year old male?
So, the garden will be put to bed, right after this rambling blog. You can have another look at Mr Howard's dissertation if you didn't get my previous repost link and see how it could apply to Canadian counterparts. I believe that it is in harmony with Occam's precept in that it provides the shortest route to compassionate and stable governance.
Ron Howard has summed up what many of us believe.
“I'm a liberal, but that doesn't mean what a lot of you apparently think it does. Let's break it down, shall we? Because quite frankly, I'm getting a little tired of being told what I believe and what I stand for. Spoiler alert: not every liberal is the same, though the majority of liberals I know think along roughly these same lines:
1. I believe a country should take care of its weakest members. A country cannot call itself civilized when its children, disabled, sick, and elderly are neglected. PERIOD.
2. I believe healthcare is a right, not a privilege. Somehow that's interpreted as "I believe Obamacare is the end-all, be-all." This is not the case. I'm fully aware that the ACA (Afforable Care Act) has problems, that a national healthcare system would require everyone to chip in, and that it's impossible to create one that is devoid of flaws, but I have yet to hear an argument against it that makes "let people die because they can't afford healthcare" a better alternative. I believe healthcare should be far cheaper than it is, and that everyone should have access to it. And no, I'm not opposed to paying higher taxes in the name of making that happen.
3. I believe education should be affordable. It doesn't necessarily have to be free (though it works in other countries so I'm mystified as to why it can't work in the US), but at the end of the day, there is no excuse for students graduating college saddled with five- or six-figure debt.
4. I don't believe your money should be taken from you and given to people who don't want to work. I have literally never encountered anyone who believes this. Ever. I just have a massive moral problem with a society where a handful of people can possess the majority of the wealth while there are people literally starving to death, freezing to death, or dying because they can't afford to go to the doctor. Fair wages, lower housing costs, universal healthcare, affordable education, and the wealthy actually paying their share would go a long way toward alleviating this. Somehow believing that makes me a communist.
5. I don't throw around "I'm willing to pay higher taxes" lightly. If I'm suggesting something that involves paying more, well, it's because I'm fine with paying my share as long as it's actually going to something besides lining corporate pockets or bombing other countries while Americans die without healthcare.
6. I believe companies should be required to pay their employees a decent, livable wage. Somehow this is always interpreted as me wanting burger flippers to be able to afford a penthouse apartment and a Mercedes. What it actually means is that no one should have to work three full-time jobs just to keep their head above water. Restaurant servers should not have to rely on tips, multibillion-dollar companies should not have employees on food stamps, workers shouldn't have to work themselves into the ground just to barely make ends meet, and minimum wage should be enough for someone to work 40 hours and live.
7. I am not anti-Christian. I have no desire to stop Christians from being Christians, to close churches, to ban the Bible, to forbid prayer in school, etc. (BTW, prayer in school is NOT illegal; *compulsory* prayer in school is - and should be - illegal). All I ask is that Christians recognize *my* right to live according to *my* beliefs. When I get pissed off that a politician is trying to legislate Scripture into law, I'm not "offended by Christianity" -- I'm offended that you're trying to force me to live by your religion's rules. You know how you get really upset at the thought of Muslims imposing Sharia law on you? That's how I feel about Christians trying to impose biblical law on me. Be a Christian. Do your thing. Just don't force it on me or mine.
8. I don't believe LGBT people should have more rights than you. I just believe they should have the *same* rights as you.
9. I don't believe illegal immigrants should come to America and have the world at their feet, especially since THIS ISN'T WHAT THEY DO (spoiler: undocumented immigrants are ineligible for all those programs they're supposed to be abusing, and if they're "stealing" your job it's because your employer is hiring illegally). I believe there are far more humane ways to handle undocumented immigration than our current practices (i.e., detaining children, splitting up families, ending DACA, etc).
10. I don't believe the government should regulate everything, but since greed is such a driving force in our country, we NEED regulations to prevent cut corners, environmental destruction, tainted food/water, unsafe materials in consumable goods or medical equipment, etc. It's not that I want the government's hands in everything -- I just don't trust people trying to make money to ensure that their products/practices/etc. are actually SAFE. Is the government devoid of shadiness? Of course not. But with those regulations in place, consumers have recourse if they're harmed and companies are liable for medical bills, environmental cleanup, etc. Just kind of seems like common sense when the alternative to government regulation is letting companies bring their bottom line into the equation.
11. I believe our current administration is fascist. Not because I dislike them or because I can’t get over an election, but because I've spent too many years reading and learning about the Third Reich to miss the similarities. Not because any administration I dislike must be Nazis, but because things are actually mirroring authoritarian and fascist regimes of the past.
12. I believe the systemic racism and misogyny in our society is much worse than many people think, and desperately needs to be addressed. Which means those with privilege -- white, straight, male, economic, etc. -- need to start listening, even if you don't like what you're hearing, so we can start dismantling everything that's causing people to be marginalized.
13. I am not interested in coming after your blessed guns, nor is anyone serving in government. What I am interested in is the enforcement of present laws and enacting new, common sense gun regulations. Got another opinion? Put it on your page, not mine.
14. I believe in so-called political correctness. I prefer to think it’s social politeness. If I call you Chuck and you say you prefer to be called Charles I’ll call you Charles. It’s the polite thing to do. Not because everyone is a delicate snowflake, but because as Maya Angelou put it, when we know better, we do better. When someone tells you that a term or phrase is more accurate/less hurtful than the one you're using, you now know better. So why not do better? How does it hurt you to NOT hurt another person?
15. I believe in funding sustainable energy, including offering education to people currently working in coal or oil so they can change jobs. There are too many sustainable options available for us to continue with coal and oil. Sorry, billionaires. Maybe try investing in something else.
16. I believe that women should not be treated as a separate class of human. They should be paid the same as men who do the same work, should have the same rights as men and should be free from abuse. Why on earth shouldn’t they be?
I think that about covers it. Bottom line is that I'm a liberal because I think we should take care of each other. That doesn't mean you should work 80 hours a week so your lazy neighbor can get all your money. It just means I don't believe there is any scenario in which preventable suffering is an acceptable outcome as long as money is saved.”
Ron Howard