Occam's Razor

Occam's Razor is named after William of Occam (1285 - 1349), who was an English Franciscan monk and a very influential thinker. Among many other interesting propositions, Occam argued that any kind of problem that we're trying to solve or investigate "should be stated in its most basic terms."

The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".

This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.



What William of Occam was getting at was that when we're exercising our minds in trying to work out a problem we should try to eliminate everything that's not strictly relevant or necessary from any statement of the problem - and from every attempt to find its solution. In other words, we should try to get down to the most essential elements involved in the problem and its solution before we even start to discuss it.



Now, the part of this idea that I want to concentrate on, is the part that involves the procedures involved in seeking solutions to problems. I'm going to restate Occam's Razor in different terms, in order to make it clear just how I think you should use this important tool. My version of Occam's Razor goes like this: Almost always use a simpler explanation of a thing or a phenomenon, rather than a more complex one, if the simpler one serves as an adequate explanation.



I'll give you a silly example, as a way of explaining precisely what I mean by this tool. Let's suppose that you make a cup of milky tea - without sugar - and leave the room for a few minutes, with the cup of hot tea resting on a table. Then, when you return, you sip the tea to discover that it is very sweet. One possible explanation (among myriad) for this strange turn of events, is that someone came into the room while you were away, and sugared the tea. Another explanation (I'm not saying it's sensible) is that ancient Greek mythical figures, known as Centaurs, entered the room through a spatio-temporal distortion and performed a sorcerer's ritual over the tea cup, resulting in a sweetening of the tea.



Now, if we take a good look at this admittedly silly example, the fact is that I can't actually prove to you that Centaurs didn't come into the room and perform their sorcery, thereby sweetening the tea. What I can tell you is that if we develop a healthy suspicion of explanations that are more complex than they need to be, or involve more elements than they need to - and if we make it a habit to seek out the simplest explanations of things, whenever they actually serve to explain the things - we'll be more often right than wrong.



Work with this tool as often as you can, and do your best to make it an intellectual habit to apply Occam's Razor. Actually say the words, in your mind and in your discussions with your friends and colleagues: "If we apply Occam's Razor, we can see pretty clearly that the explanation you're providing is much more complicated than we need …" Use it in everything, from an analysis of the reasons why nations go to war, to the reasons put forward for economic "rationalisation" within societies. With practice, the tool will serve you well, and become one of the handiest in your coach's toolkit.

This article is based on an extract from Gregory David Roberts web site, Shantaram.

USEFUL LINKS

• Subscribe to the CorporateCoach RSS feed


• Shantaram

blog comments powered by Disqus