Posts
Comments
Occam's razor actually suggest that entities are not to be multiplied without necessity.
Unfortunately, most people happily bastardize Occam's Razor, abusing it to suggest the simpler explanation is usually the better one.
First off, define simple. Simple how? Can you objectively define simplicity? (It's not easily done.) Second, explanations must fit the facts. Third, this is a heuristic-based argument, not a logical proof of something. (This same argument was used against Boltzman and his idea of the atom, but Boltzman was right.) Fourth, what does "usually" mean anyway? Define that objectively. Black swans events are seemingly impossible, yet they happen much more regularly than people imagine (because they are based on power laws/fractal statistics, not the Bell Curve reality we often think in terms of where the past gives us some sense of what to expect).
Consequently, I don't consider an offhand mention of Occam's razor as a compelling argument. I would stop shaking your head and reconsider what it is you think you know.
And that is exactly the mindset that the purveyors of propaganda, the mentally-handicapping cretins that push false ideas for political gain would like it to be. They want you not to be well-informed about matters like evolution and self-organization because these undermine their base and also enable you to think more clearly.
Maybe rather than make categorical claims about what you want, you might actually prefer people to approach matters by intelligently evaluating them on a case-by-case basis.
You exhibit a bias or prejudice that is quite obnoxious in some situations.