> His razer would have been much sharper. Because , as I often say here
> "'understanding reincarnation, everything makes sense" Explanations
> are simple . Not doing so, there are no explanations, just mysteries.
>
> BOfL
If we make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make
no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory
hypothesis or theory, then reincarnation is contradictory to rotting
in a grave or even being resurrected. Those are three theories that do
not meet the minimal sameness for the elimnation of the others for the
one.
Occam's Razor
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: entities must 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
one should not increase,
beyond what is necessary,
the number of entities required
to explain anything
...one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This
principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all
scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose
from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the
simplest one. In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to "shave
off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really
needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model
will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing
inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies.
Though the principle may seem rather trivial, it is essential for
model building because of what is known as the "underdetermination of
theories by data". For a given set of observations or data, there is
always an infinite number of possible models explaining those same
data. This is because a model normally represents an infinite number
of possible cases, of which the observed cases are only a finite
subset. The non-observed cases are inferred by postulating general
rules covering both actual and potential observations...
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/occamraz.html
