Now I learned that just as in more mainstream human activity, if you couldn't win your point by the strength of your argument there was always brute force. I am not suggesting physical violence of course, although even that may happen on occasion. The bludgeoning is more usually inflicted by mental techniques such as belittling an opponent or by the more subtle "straw man" tactic where instead of attacking an idea you attack the person offering it.

I use this little personal anecdote to introduce one of my heroes, William of Ockham or as I like to call him William van Ockham. Ockham was born around the year 1285 in Surrey, England. That would make him a sort of successor to Roger Bacon who died in 1294. Although like Bacon, he was involved with the order of the Franciscans it is not known whether he was familliar with the other man's work.

Both men seem to have had their conflicts with the establishment and like Bacon, Ockham was also detained for a time although not the ten year prison term inflicted on Bacon. It seems that speaking your mind was not a particularly healthy thing to do at a time when the folks running the Church sometimes confused their own role with that of the God they claimed to serve. But I digress.

William of Ockham was a polymath whose interests roamed over a broad range of subjects. If you are interested you can read a detailed account of his work here. His most enduring legacy is a principle which though named after him he didn't even invent. However, he mentioned the principle so frequently and used it so effectively that it was called "Ockham’s razor."

Known as Doctor Invincibilis and Venerabilis Inceptor ("unconquerable doctor" or "worthy initiator" in Latin), Ockham was a defender of the concept of Nominalism. Good old Bill left a pretty major legacy, with his defense of Nominalism and his general approach to logic which punched some serious holes in the theological beliefs of the church of his day. Our main interest here, however, is in that razor of his. Make no mistake this is a pretty useful tool.

So what exactly is this "razor"? More formally it is the principle of economy in formal logic which states that "entities (or explanations) are not to be multiplied without necessity". In other words, Keep It Simple Stupid! I like that! Although most people would associate this notion with the rough and tumble of everyday life where keeping things direct and uncomplicated is probably a good thing, how does this apply to Science?

While it is true that you often can't sum up what may be many years of research in five words or less, still... "explanations are not to be multiplied without necessity". One of the things that makes science difficult to follow sometimes is the tendency to "load" what are often relatively simple concepts with an abundance of barely relevant and excruciatingly detailed "window dressing".

This tendency becomes even more noticeable when the facts and conclusions are a tad on the doubtful side. "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with b___ s___ " goes an old expression. If you think that never happens in scientific circles... but that's another story. The point is that with virtually any theory describing how the world works, you will find that complicated theories don't always stand up whereas simple ones often do.

For example when Ockham's razor was applied to astronomy, the Copernican view of the universe ultimately won the day because it was the simpler and more direct idea. As we study the history of ideas, this pattern becomes clear. Great fundamental truths ultimately prevail because no convoluted argument is needed to prop them up. On the other hand, flawed logic never ceases to test the ingenuity of its proponents in finding ever more complicated ways to prove the impossible.

Let me close with one final note of caution. We must never confuse the judicious application of Ockham's razor with the blunt instrument of bias and prejudice. Deciding which theoretical construction is the simplest is not the same as determining which one fits most comfortably with our dearly held preconceptions. "I've always believed this" is not equal to "this is the most economical theory to fit all the facts".

Other Essays