I will say this, IF
William of Occam today say how his principle was being applied by science, he would literally have a heart attack!!!! Bet
The principle behind Occam's Razor is that we should interpret data and observations in a predetermined way, and not
necessarily by scientific
method, and in a way that fits in with a reductionist materialistic model of reality. Therefore, any data or observations that may need a complex and
revisionistset of theories to explain must be either fraudulent or mistaken or, in the case of science, ridiculed and scoffed at!
Personally, it can clearly be seen that Occam's Razor is a technique, or in the case of science....a tool
, that should not be employed in
scientific inquiry. The reasons this is that we have discovered during scientific endeavors of the last century that the world and natural phenomena
are actually quite very complex. All around us there are more complex interactions of energies, atomic and sub-atomic particles which require a very
complicated model to explain.
If we had applied or used Occam's Razor with the results of Young's Two Split experiment, we would not have a modern physics as we know today. We
would have never had moved on from a basic Newtonian model of Nature; we would be ignorant of phenomena that now provide the very bedrock for theories
To me, the observation is simply this: complex phenomena requires a complex explanation, and Occam's Razor , which appears to be more a symptom of
psychology or cognitive dissonance, an aversion to ideas, rather than a technique used to interpret data, insists that we interpret all data in a
simplisticway, which is obviously not good science.
Eventually, of coarse, the truth will come to light, and the weight of repeatable, testable evidences crushes any dissenting voices, but the costs to
us in wasted time and resources, not to mention the tarnished reputations of honest, diligent researchers, is too great.
"Nothing is too wonderful to be true if it be consistant with the laws of Nature." --- M. Faraday
I could go on but blah, blah.... I agree though...