Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No it wouldn't, Occam's Razor does not say "the simplest explanation is always the best" it says "all else being equal the explanation that makes the fewest assumptions is the best".
You're wrong but mostly because you used Wikipedia's summary (you're wrong because of the strength you're using...which is not the original Occam's Razor nor was it intended to be used so strongly...it is kind of like saying, "It rained just a bit yesterday" and then someone quoting you as saying, "it rained quite a bit yesterday"😉.
Sure, if you're using the introduction on the wikiepedia article, you could conclude that. hint hint, wink wink...
The actual "razor" is sometimes this:
"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate."
And the ACTUAL theory goes something like this:
"If two theories equally explain something, the one that is simpler is better."
NOT this one that you used from wikipedia:
"It is a principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect."
The real basic of basic explanation for Occam's Razor is: "Appeal to simplicity".
Also, there is Newton's explanation:
"We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances"
In that instance...if there are two theories, one more complicated than the other, but both theories contain no unnecessary elements, then they are both equal and Occam's razor fails (by Newton's assessment) to be of help.
Here's how we would use it today:
"When you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."
Here, we see your explanation of Occam's Razor and how your explanation is actually strengthening the original meaning:
"Occam's razor is often cited in stronger forms than Occam intended, as in the following statements. . .
'The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct.'
Notice how the principle has strengthened in these forms which should be more correctly called the law of parsimony, or the rule of simplicity. To begin with, we used Occam's razor to separate theories that would predict the same result for all experiments. Now we are trying to choose between theories that make different predictions. This is not what Occam intended. Should we not test those predictions instead? Obviously we should eventually, but suppose we are at an early stage and are not yet ready to do the experiments. We are just looking for guidance in developing a theory."
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html
Final word on this from Einstein:
"In my view, such more complicated systems and their combinations should be considered only if there exist physical-empirical reasons to do so."
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The four elements are not as good an explanation as what we use today.
And you are most incorrect about the four elements from multiple angles (sure, if you want to pretend that the four elements, in their metaphysical and basic form, at a face-value interpretation of my post, is exactly what I mean, but that's obviously not what I intended and I'll reveal exactly why in a few spaces...). 🙂
I am quite glad you disagreed, as well, because it allows me to illustrate my point:
gravitation
electromagnetism
strong nuclear force
weak nuclear force
estahuh
Additionally, even your quoted wikipedia article makes direct reference to that exact subject:
"One can also argue (also in hindsight) for atomic building blocks for matter, because it provides a simpler explanation for the observed reversibility of both mixing and chemical reactions as simple separation and re-arrangements of the atomic building blocks. However, at the time, the atomic theory was considered more complex because it inferred the existence of invisible particles which had not been directly detected. Ernst Mach and the logical positivists rejected the atomic theory of John Dalton, until the reality of atoms was more evident in Brownian motion, as explained by Albert Einstein."
Also, we STILL use a form of the four elements but instead call them states of matter: solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. peaches