Most of the time !!!!!!!
I really do not want to delve into toooooo much of theory in any case so I just say "I learned it " where /how/when do not remember .
Eg: 1.circuits without ground will have issues !!
2. Numbers can be manipulated to a large extent (default rules apply - no justification needed)
3. Circuit components active and passive behave differently (people mess it up and I am #%$^@# )
There is a very interesting scenario in Lawrence Krauss's ''A Universe from Nothing', where he describes how far-future scientists would look at the universe from their corner of the universe (after the universe has aged and diluted way beyond the current situation.)
Krauss shows that these hypothetical far-future scientists, using impeccable logic, would reach all the wrong conclusions if they used Ockham's razor. It is spectacular, but not the only case I've seen in Research when use of Ockham's razor would mislead.
In other words, Ockham's razor is an interesting and valid 'soft' guideline, but can never replace cold-light-of-day mathematical analysis. It has no value per se, it is simply a rough-and-ready guide towards the possible solutions that should be analysed, and vetted, first.
The most useful statement of the principle for researchers is "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."
The most useful statement of the principle for researchers is "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."
That is the underlying philosophy of principle of Occam's Razor! I agree with Prof. Mushtaq.
Occam's Razor - It usually refers to the philosophy or scientific principle that the simplest answer is likely correct for the occurrence of an event.
Example: A ball rolls out into the road in front of a car. Possible explanations - a) Some children are playing ball and it accidentally rolled into the road and b) Someone is maliciously attempting to cause an accident, explanation "a" is likely correct.
In research, we often consider the simpler method to perform a task (as stated by Dr. Mushtaq Ahmad).
Regards
The most common version of the Occam's Razor is described by stating that among two theories the simpler one is the better. In majority of the cases we need, however, to decide first if we consider the syntactic simplicity or the ontological simplicity.
(According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy the Syntactic simplicity, or elegance, measures the number and conciseness of the theory's basic principles whereas the Ontological simplicity, or parsimony, measures the number of kinds of entities postulated by the theory).
In my discipline I consider mostly the first kind of simplicity. This leads to the selection of rather simple but adequate mathematical models of the Atmospheric processes. The situation is illustrated by the well known quote from A. Einstein: "Everything should be as simple as possible but not simpler". The models derived using this principle include the well known Lorentz system used as an example of the chaotic nature of the atmospheric dynamics.
It is remarkable that in the past one hundred years the major progress in our understanding of the Earth's atmosphere was accomplished using the simplified models based on the Occam's Razor. They are still used today despite of the common availability of very complex computer systems. The simple models are often applied as a part of the "back of the envelope calculations" (the concept introduced by Enrico Fermi in 1940s). Based on my observations we can say that this Fermi method constitutes a variant of the Occam's Razor in natural sciences and engineering.
I am most conscious of the merit of Occam's in my work as a clinical mentor of students who are learning to be counselors and psychotherapists. I find it is important to remind graduate students to begin working with the simplest and most elegant hypothesis or explanation rather than employ complex explanations to guide their work as psychotherapists.
The research I have developed has been following the scientific method; applied mainly in biomedicine, medical education and clinical medicine.
The method of the "Ockham Knife" is not scientific.
I consider it only a general orientation that is by no means an axiom and not irrefutable either. Furthermore, it is not reached as a result of a scientific research process.
According to "this principle" "The simplest and sufficient explanation is the most probable, but not necessarily the true one". This always has to be remembered and emphasized; for which I insist, in that it gives only a general orientation in science, but it does not always lead to the truth.
Dear Dr.Jose,
".................. it gives only a general orientation in science, but it does not always lead to the truth." It is hundred percent true.
In science, a conclusion comes from the investigation that carried out following a scientific algorithm. The inference on any event can be justified based on evidences.
Thanks and regards
There is great confusion about what Occam's razor is. It is indeed a principle of economy, that have been elaborated by Mach. It doesn't say at all that such or such is the truth, nor even the most probable. It say that when we have so fortunate as to have to choose between two explanations, it is better to pick the simplest one because it will be of the same use while being easier. Actually, this situation almost never applies, and Occam's razor is only used by philosopher in a quite speculative way. Or it is used by would be scientists who have no other argument to oppose to another would be scientist.
Shaving away/removal of unnecessary assumptions is always best policy in all aspects.
Writing. We published this article on it:
How do you write and present research well? 3—shave your text with Occam's Razor
Article How do you write and present research well? 3 - Shave your t...
Here is the abstract
Classical philosophers argued that “entities must not be multiplied
beyond necessity”—Occam’s Razor (circa 1300 CE). Engineers
respect this razor when their theories and models are as simple
as possible, but no simpler.[2] We apply this razor to writing:
(1) do not add unnecessary words, and (2) simpler sentences are
generally better than complex ones.
When you replace the it. . . that construction with the personal
pronoun we, the text is more concise.[3] However, we is not always
the best agent; better agents are subjects that convey the action,
event, or state of being expressed by the verb.[3] Here, we identify
feeble verb constructions (also known as weak,[4] delexical, or
light verbs) and recommend substituting them with vigorous or
active verbs.[5] “Mutilating” verbs[6] (converting verbs to nouns)
is another writing practice that introduces meaningless words: to
form → for the formation of, to produce → for the production of.
Finally, we remove zero words in titles and reformulate them to
better convey their message.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics