I've always thought Occam's Razor was a shitty, shitty method for defining how useful any argument or set of assumptions is.

You could also basically make any argument with Occam's Razor, and as long as you frame it properly, Occam will support you.

1) Instead of all this scientific mumbo-jumbo about physics and relativity that is imperfectly understood and nigh-impossible to prove outside of theory, it is much simpler to believe that God exists and that He controls all things.

2) Instead of assuming that some sort of invisible, all-powerful supernatural being exists and has some sort of mechanism from which he creates/controls all things, it is much simpler to believe that the Universe just exists, and it works according to a few basic laws from which we can derive how all other things work.

Or, just to play devil's advocate,

Occam's razor says that either tens of thousands of scientists, businessmen, chemists, and engineers in the pharmaceuticals industry have ALL missed the possibility of negative effects stemming from these vaccines, or that certain key figures who have the data are silent so that the government can better control its people. Which is the simpler explanation?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2010 08:24AM by vortex_magus.