On 25 April, Hauke Riesch of UCL will present some ‘work in progress’ under the title “Simple or simplistic? Scientists’ views of Occam’s Razor”. Hauke has analysed 29 recent popular science books by scientists and is exploring how concepts from philsosophy of science are used in these books.

Simple or Simplistic? Scientists’ views of Occam’s razor
Hauke Riesch

Popular accounts of science, such as Sagan’s famous ’baloney’detector kit are generally seen to portray Occam’s razor, or the value of simplicity for theory choice and as a demarcation criterion, very positively. The value of simplicity in science is moreover one of the least controversial philosophical concepts – debates on Occam’s razor centre more on how it can be justified, rather than on whether it should be justified at all.

In a more systematic survey of 29 recently published popular science books, the picture of what scientists themselves think about simplicity becomes a little bit more complex. While there is a general tone of acceptance of Occam’s razor, there are also people who disagree with the whole concept. The question of the value of simplicity was then put to practising scientists themselves in a series of 40 semi-structured interviews. Again the range of opinions vary enormously from a ‘gut-feeling’ acceptance that looking for simplicity in science will yield results that are more likely to be true, to an outright rejection of the principle, stating that it has done more harm than good in science.

I will compare the opinions presented by the popular science books as the ‘public face of science’ with those expressed by working scientists, and with the different versions of the principle as presented and justified by philosophy. In the light of the range of opinions on Occam?s razor, and the variations in which it is discussed in the different contexts and disciplines, I will ask what possible usefulness it still has as a normative philosophical principle in popular science.