Occam's Razor seems to be often misunderstood by critics of it and just in general. For those who do not know what Occam's Razor is, it is the statement that "plurality must never be posited without necessity." What this means is that a more complex model should only be favoured if there is good reason to believe so. Meanwhile, a more simple model should be favoured if there is no good reason to believe so. Essentially, whichever model makes more assumptions should be dismissed until proven.
I think that it holds true that all simple models should be accepted unless there is reason to think otherwise. For example,
Flat earth is a simpler model compared to an Earth which is a globe. However, we have reason to believe in a globe earth over a flat earth despite it being the arguably more complex model. Similarly:
We have lightning because of the electricity that comes out of the clouds which is guided by Zeus.
We have lightning because of the electricity that comes out of the clouds.
When you apply Occam's Razor here, the second one is the one that should be accepted because there is no reason to agree with the first model. It is more complex and there is no reason to believe that Zeus is the reason.
I honestly think it kind of is a strict rule which is something I keep saying that it isn't. I can not think of a single situation that has both a complex and a simple model where it does not work.
A person in r/askphilosophy said the following:
3) The cause of lightning is electricity in clouds
4) The cause of lightning is quantum entanglement between space and clouds
Occam's Razor is apparently not applicable here because they 'postulate very different mechanisms and causes.' I do not quite understand this because there are times when I believe Occam's Razor is still applicable despite them postulating different mechanisms. For example:
[y] is eternal.
[y] is not eternal, and [y] is actually caused by an eternal conscious being.
I would assume that Occam's Razor prefers the first one, but both examples postulate rather different statements. However, I assume that the following allows for Occam's Razor to be applied:
3) The cause of lightning is electricity in clouds
4) The cause of lightning [is electricity in clouds and electricity in clouds] is [caused by] quantum entanglement between space and clouds
I would assume that 3. is favoured by Occam's Razor in this situation, rather than the second one now. So I would argue that the original thing said by the r/askphilosophy user actually does allow for Occam's Razor, although not technically, but one does infer/the statement somewhat implies the [is electricity in clouds and electricity in clouds is caused by] part. However, I will say Occam's Razor is technically not applicable.
So I am just going to say that Occam's Razor is applicable in pretty much every situation in which it has two models where they explain the same thing and one is more simpler than the other.
CMV
I hear people, mostly from developed countries (which makes sense, I doubt many people in active war zones and places without internet have reddit) say that the world sucks, and that it feels like it's getting worse. A responce to dropping fertility rates is often "Who would want to bring a child into this world" Seriously? We've cut the number of people living in extreme poverty in half and more in the last 30 years. A working class person in a developed country lives better than a king did 50 years ago. We have phones that can do anything and fit in our pockets. We have internet. What better time to live than right now as a whole?
Now you may say "The 90s were better I was there" sure and I bet you wouldn't be saying that if you weren't a white straight male. For humanity as a whole, now is the best time to be alive.
We live in a world where people can ‘support’ real human beings going to remote battlefields to fight to their death for a cause.
Yet, simultaneously the same people who ‘support’ said war would find it barbaric to watch 25 minutes of battlefield footage.
I put it to you that many people support the abstract version of war i.e. ‘we good; they bad - kill’. Yet, if they were forced to face the reality of said war, their support would fold faster than heated butter.
I don’t reference any particular war in this, albeit some spring straight to mind…