Blind Fai h Pa simony
Wo king Pape - Ve sion 1.4 (Oc obe 08, 2025)
This is a wo king pape in ended o ci cula ion and discussion. Commen s a e welcome and should be di ec ed o
wona u es@li e.com.
© 2025 A seniy Vodopyano . All igh s ese ed.
1
Simplici y, No Simplism: in De ence o Occam‘s
Razo as Scien i ic Necessi y
Au ho : A. Vodopyano , Independen Resea che
Email: w[email p o ec ed]
P e-p in a chi ed a Zenodo: h ps://doi.o g/10.5281/zenodo.17261035
Indexed on PhilPape s: h ps://philpape s.o g/ ec/VODBFP
Abs ac
Occam‘s Razo (also known as
he p inciple o pa simony
and
on ological
educ ionism
) is egula ly dismissed as an o namen al es ige—no longe wo hy
o i s longs anding s a us as a undamen al scien i ic p inciple. An in e p e a ion
he eo called
Ve i ica ional Simplici y
o
Blind Fai h Pa simony
is o e ed, which: (a)
iden i ies he mos scien i ic hypo hesis as ha yielding ulles accoun o
co esponding da a while necessi a ing leas e i iabili y-a e se assump ion (b)
unde lies all in eg al scien i ic alues and (c) is o pa amoun scien i ic
impo ance. Th ee suppo ing a gumen s a e employed. A gumen 1 highligh s
he o en-o e looked agili y wi h which Occam‘s Razo acco ds o la es da a.
A gumen 2 shows ha wi hou pa simony o block
ad hoc hypo heses
,
alsi iabili y
is impossible— ende ing science i sel un enable. While a gumen 3 co e s he
eno mous bu den o p oo easonable co esponding dismissals mus shoulde .
Keywo ds
: Philosophy o Science, Pa simony, Ve i iabili y, Falsi iabili y,
Reduc ionism, Bayesian P obabilism, Hi chens‘s Razo , Sagan S anda d
Blind Fai h Pa simony
2
In oduc ion
As eloquen ly summa ized by McFadden (2023, pp. 8, 11):
”Occam‘s azo ... has ecen ly been a acked as a cul u al bias wi hou a ional
ounda ion.
…
This c i icism o he in luence o Occam‘s azo in science emains common. [I ]
has been a acked wi h claims ha ‘i s he o ical pu pose [is] as an old saw
pe suading us o champion he supposed i ue o simplici y.‘
44
In sys ems
biology, o example, i has been claimed ha because li e is ‘i educibly
complex‘ Occam‘s azo has no ole in model selec ion.
45
Recen popula science
a icles by in luen ial au ho s ha e made simila claims… a guing ha Occam‘s
azo ep esen s he ‘ y anny o simple explana ions‘
46
o ha i is ‘appealing,
widely belie ed, and deeply misleading‘.
47
… Likely con ibu [ing] o wha has
been desc ibed as ‘a wo ying end o a ou unnecessa ily complex
in e p e a ions‘.
48”
Ox o d Re e ence‘s
Dic iona y o Epidemiology
desc ibes Occam’s Razo as:
”The p inciple o scien i ic pa simony (pa simony in he sense o unwillingness
o use unnecessa y esou ces, [which is also some imes e e ed o as scien i ic]
ugali y, aus e i y). An ancien p inciple o en a ibu ed o he philosophe …
William o Ockham (c.1285-c.1349), who said:… assump ions o explain a
phenomenon mus no be mul iplied beyond necessi y.”
The Rou ledge ”P obabili y, Choice, and Reason” ex book by P o . Leigh on
Vaughan Williams, elabo a es hus (2021, pp. 186, 189):
”Occam’s Razo has come o embody he me hod o elimina ing unnecessa y
hypo heses. Essen ially, [i ] holds ha he heo y which explains all (o he mos )
while assuming he leas is he mos likely o be co ec . … This is he p inciple
o pa simony.
…
Occam’s Razo … poin s o he simples explana ion ha is consis en
wi h he da a a ailable a a gi en ime, bu e en so he simples explana ion
may be uled ou as new da a become a ailable. This does no in alida e he
Razo , which does no s a e ha simple heo ies a e necessa ily mo e ue
han mo e complex heo ies, bu ha when mo e han one heo y explains
Blind Fai h Pa simony
3
he same da a, he simple should be acco ded mo e p obabilis ic weigh .[
1
] So
Occam’s Razo … is also consis en wi h mul iplying en i ies which a e in ac
necessa y o explain a phenomenon.” E.g., In sys ems biology.
Two co olla y p inciples a e known as:
i. Hi chens‘s azo (2007, p. 150): ”Wha [is] asse ed wi hou e idence can… be
dismissed wi hou e idence.”
ii. Sagan s anda d (1979, p. 73): ”Ex ao dina y claims equi e ex ao dina y
e idence.”
2
As expanded-upon in A gumen 1 below, said da a/e idence consis ency poin is
absolu ely c ucial.
A gumen 1: Da a Consis ency
The mos popula co esponding example is known as
duck es
. Dic iona y.com
b ie ly elabo a es:
”I i looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, says Occam’s
azo , i ’s p obably a duck. No a goose disguised as a duck ha in il a ed he
lock.”
This is so because he added con olu ion/ex ao dina iness o ha la e
goose-in il a o hypo hesis, p o es supe luous (and he e o e unscien i ic)
when he ex ao dina y e idence needed o subs an ia e i —is missing. Occam‘s
Razo compelling esea che s o p io i ize he mo e logically s aigh o wa d and
he e o e mo e scien i ic duck hypo hesis ins ead. As keenly obse ed by
Williams abo e howe e , his would cease o be he case i ”new da a became
a ailable” which e ealed he goose hypo hesis o be mo e logically
s aigh o wa d a e all. E.g., I he animal was ac ually e i ied o ake o i s
duck cos ume; wi hou which i indeed looked, ac ed and sounded like a goose.
In ligh o his ex ao dina y new da a, i is hen he disguised-goose hypo hesis
ha p o es he mo e logically s aigh o wa d, less con olu ed and he e o e
mo e scien i ic o he wo. Because i would hen be e en mo e con olu ed o
claim ha i was none heless a duck all along. Which would ha e had o
success ully disguise i sel as a goose who, in u n, disguised i sel as a duck.
1
Such “p obabilis ic“ applica ion o Occam‘s Razo , quickly p o es a logical necessi y. E.g., Because
ea ing spec a as bina ies a he cos o c ucial co esponding da a is con a y o being ”consis en
wi h he da a a ailable.” I.e., To yielding he ulles accoun he eo . Which na u ally leads o ano he
co esponding co olla y known as
Bayesian P obabilism/In e ence
.
2
As T essoldi (2011, p. 1) no es, his p inciple is Sagan‘s popula ewo ding o ”Laplace’s p inciple[:]
‘ he weigh o e idence o an ex ao dina y claim mus be p opo ioned o i s s angeness’ (Gillispie
e al., 1999).”
Blind Fai h Pa simony
4
Unless e en mo e ex ao dina y e idence/da a came o ligh , which ende ed his
e en mo e-ex ao dina y hypo hesis he mos s aigh o wa d, plausible op ion.
And so on.
In ei he case, Occam‘s Razo indeed emains e e help ul and in ac . Simply
eminding esea che s o p io i ize whiche e hypo hesis ma ches he a ailable
co esponding da a mos e i iably. Keeping he ex en o blind assump ion
equi ed o accep i , down o minimum and hus keeping said hypo hesis as
scien i ic as humanly possible. Which b ings us o he no ion ha in e p e ing
Occam’s Razo me ely as p e e ing supe icial simplici y—is simplis ic and
e oneous. A mo e accu a e in e p e a ion o i s aim being
Ve i ica ional Simplici y.
I.e.,
Blind Fai h Pa simony: he mos scien i ic hypo hesis is whiche e yields ulles
accoun o co esponding da a, while necessi a ing leas e i iabili y-a e se assump ion
.
A c i ical dis inc ion oo o en o e looked in a gumen s agains Occam‘s Razo
being scien i ically undamen al.
A gumen 2: No Pa simony →No Falsi iabili y →No Science
The ollowing 3-s ep a gumen es ablishes co esponding undamen ali y u he
ye .
S1. No Falsi iabili y = No Science
Despi e occasional challenges (o en in se ing ashionable heo ies which
hemsel es inc easingly p o e un alsi iable), he no ion ha
alsi iabili y
is cen al
o iden i ying pseudoscien i ic heo ies—is well ounded and es ablished in
mains eam academia. As b ie ly demons a ed below.
Encyclopedia o Science and Religion‘s alsi iabili y en y s a es:
”Falsi iabili y [is] he mos commonly in oked ‘c i e ion o dema ca ion‘ o
science om nonscience.”
McFadden (2023, p. 8) adds:
”Philosophy o science is a ely augh as a componen o scien i ic educa ion,
bu i pushed o iden i y he de ining ea u e o hei disciplines mos scien is s
gene ally choose he p inciple o alsi iabili y (a ibu able o Ka l Poppe ).
14
”
A p ominen example o co esponding con ex ualiza ion is Michael Ruse‘s
(Be and Russell Socie y awa d) ellingly i led 1982 ”C ea ion Science Is No
Science”:
”Religion [and] c ea ion-science is no science [because genuine] science mus
be open o change, howe e con iden one may eel a p esen . Fana ical
Blind Fai h Pa simony
5
dogma ism is jus no accep able. … I he ac s speak agains a heo y, hen i
mus go. A [genuine] body o science mus be alsi iable.”
S an o d Encyclopedia o Philosophy expands upon he co esponding posi ion
hus:
”I a heo y is incompa ible wi h possible empi ical obse a ions i is scien i ic;
con e sely, a heo y which is compa ible wi h all such obse a ions… is
unscien i ic.”
Camb idge dic iona y adds:
”Falsi iable [means] able o be p o ed... alse. [E.g.,]
All good science mus be
alsi iable
.”
Why alsi iabili y is so scien i ically-essen ial, is u he delinea ed ia Ox o d
Re e ence. Acco ding o which, science i sel is:
”The sys ema ic s udy o he s uc u e and beha io o he physical and
na u al wo ld h ough obse a ion, expe imen a ion, and he es ing o
heo ies agains he e idence ob ained.” (As ci ed in McHugh, 2024, p. 88)
E go, i a heo y canno be alsi ied when ” es [ed] agains e idence”, hen i
simply isn‘ genuinely e idence-based and he e o e—isn‘ scien i ic. Pa icula ly
so, when es able al e na i es exis (as is i ually always he case).
S2. No Pa simony = No Falsi iabili y
Pe Poppe (2008, p. 731):
”Falsi ica ion o a heo [y] can always be a oided by in oducing an auxilia y
hypo hesis.”
These a e also e e ed o as ad hoc hypo heses,
immunizing s a agems
o
ins ances o
special pleading.
Schindle (2024, p. 71) elabo a es:
”When in oduced o sa e a heo y, ad hoc hypo heses would educe he
heo y‘s alsi iabili y, and he e o e ‘deg ees o ad hoc-ness a e ela ed
(in e sely) o deg ees[
3
] o es abili y and signi icance‘ (Poppe , 1959).
…
Ad hoc hypo heses a e hypo heses which may make independen p edic ions,
bu o which he e [is] no suppo . This iew is inc edibly popula … (Scha ne ,
1974; Leplin, 1975…). The ollowing example is o en in oked o mo i a e he
3
Once again, i being a mo e accu a e o assess such ac o s in ‘deg ees‘ a he han in simplis ic
bina y e ms.
Blind Fai h Pa simony
6
iew (e.g., Wo all, 2002): when an i egula i y was disco e ed in he plane
U anus, Adams and Le Ve ie in 1845-46 p oposed ha a new plane in he
icini y o U anus migh cause he disc epancy. A i s , he ‘Nep une
hypo hesis‘ was ad hoc, because i was in oduced o sa e New on‘s heo y. Bu
a e Nep une was disco e ed, he hypo hesis was independen ly con i med
and hus los i s ad hoc s a us.
15
”
O as eloquen ly eph ased in he Wikipedia Occam‘s Razo en y
4
:
”E en i some inc eases in complexi y a e some imes necessa y, he e s ill
emains a jus i ied gene al bias owa d he simple o wo compe ing
explana ions. To unde s and why, conside ha o each accep ed explana ion
o a phenomenon, he e is always an in ini e numbe o possible, mo e complex,
and ul ima ely inco ec , al e na i es. This is so because one can always bu den
a ailing explana ion wi h an ad hoc hypo hesis.. p e en [ing i ] om being
alsi ied.
… This endless supply o elabo a e compe ing explana ions… canno be
echnically uled ou – excep by using Occam‘s azo .[32][33][34]”
I.e., In lieu o he da a/e idence needed o de end a pa icula hypo hesis, ”one
can always [p op i up] wi h an ad hoc hypo hesis”. E.g., Dinosau ossils
con adic he Biblical accoun , p omp ing some Ch is ians o amously claim
ha said ossils we e plan ed by God himsel o es humani y‘s ai h. Which is
ad hoc because i elies on a deeply-selec i e assessmen o co esponding da a,
while necessi a ing a as compa a i e measu e o e i iabili y-a e se
assump ion. A maneu e ha is no mo e scien i ic han in oking ha
disguised-goose hypo hesis on li le o no e idence.
S3. E go: No Pa simony = No Science
Gi en he wo p eceding poin s, i should indeed be clea ha ”endless…
elabo a e compe ing [ad hoc] hypo heses, canno be echnically uled ou –
excep by using Occam‘s azo ” in some o m. I.e., Tha unless esea che s i s
employ such pa simony o help weigh scien i ic p obabili ies agains one
ano he —all hypo heses become un alsi iable; and as such—unscien i ic. Lea ing
no means o objec i ely disce n mo e scien i ic, s aigh o wa d and likely
explana ions om hei mo e unscien i ic, con olu ed and unlikely kin; o
dis inguish needless blind ai h om ha , as-ye scien i ically una oidable.
4
As wi h Dic iona y.com, Wikipedia is used he e as a e ia y sou ce due p ima ily o he soundness
o i s ph asing. The unde lying concep s ha ing been (a) es ablished elsewhe e in his pape ia bo h
basic easoning and p ima y sou ces, as well as (b) es ablished ia co esponding sou ces ci ed by
Wikipedia i sel (e.g., S ano ich, 2007 pp. 19–33; Ca oll, 2008; Swinbu ne, 1997).
Blind Fai h Pa simony
7
A gumen 3: Bu den o P oo
The Blind Fai h Pa simony in e p e a ion o Occam‘s Razo mo eo e lea es
c i ics o ackle ques ions like:
a. A e cen u ies o s udy, can so much as a single example be clea ly iden i ied
whe e abo e-de ailed pi alls a e a oided and ye he co esponding p inciple
ails? I.e., Is he e a single hypo hesis which yields ulles accoun o
co esponding da a while necessi a ing leas e i iabili y-a e se assump ion and
ye p o es less scien i ic han al e na i es? So p io o new co esponding da a
becoming a ailable?
b. E en i such a case can be co obo a ed, can i easonably be cha ac e ized as
no
an excep ion ha p o es he ule
?
c. I he answe o ‘b‘ (much less ‘a‘) abo e is ‘no‘—does his lea e any easonable
oom o doub o e whe he such pa simony is a co e scien i ic p inciple?
Co esponding dismissals need demons a e no only ha pu a i e excep ions
a e genuine and signi ican , bu also:
i. Tha a iable al e na i e a oids compa a i ely mo e he eo .
ii. Tha his al e na i e ei he di e s in essence om said p inciple o is e en
mo e undamen al. O he wise i could cons i u e only ano he co olla y
5
and/o
complemen he e o a mos , no a genuine al e na i e.
Conclusion
Only misin e p e a ion and misuse o Occam‘s Razo p o es an i he ical o
genuine science. Such as con la ing he
e i ica ional simplici y
p e e ed he eby
wi h
simplism
(e.g., igno ing ex ao dina y coun e e idence so as o a i icially
bols e simplis ic explana ions). Whe eas genuine Occam‘s Razo exp essly
o bids such misuse, p o ing i sel essen ial o genuine science a e all.
5
I is mo eo e e en di icul o iden i y a single in eg al scien i ic alue which (in i s op imal o m) is
no unde lain by such pa simony. I.e., Which does no appea u he along he logical pa h ini ia ed
he eby. F om alsi iabili y, e i iabili y, Hi chens‘s Razo , Sagan S anda d and Bayesian p obabili y as
shown abo e, o o he such alues like cohe ence, p edic i e powe and explana o y scope. A
hypo hesis sco ing poo ly on ei he such on , in a iably p o ing o be less capable o yielding a ull
accoun o co esponding da a and/o o en angling less e i iabili y-a e se assump ion.
Blind Fai h Pa simony
8
Re e ences
Ca oll, R. T. (2008, June 22). Ad hoc hypo hesis. The Skep ic‘s Dic iona y.
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20251001215830/h ps://skepdic.com/adhoc.h ml
Dic iona y.com. (2018). Occam’s azo .
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20251001203111/h ps://www.dic iona y.com/e/pop-cul u e/occams- azo /
Encyclopedia o Science and Religion. (2003). Falsi iabili y. Macmillan Re e ence USA.
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20251001203814/h ps://www.encyclopedia.com/science-and- echnology/physics/science-gene al/ alsi iabili y
Hi chens, C. (2007). God is no g ea : How eligion poisons e e y hing. Twel e.
McFadden, J. (2023). Razo sha p: The ole o Occam’s azo in science. Annals o he New Yo k
Academy o Sciences, 1530, 8–17.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/nyas.15086
McHugh, K. (2024). A scien is ‘s jou ney: lea ning o communica e science o imp o ed
na u e connec edness. The Li ing Lab, 1(1), 86–107.
h ps://doi.o g/10.20933/40000104
. A ailable a
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20251001210254/h ps://disco e y.dundee.ac.uk/ws/po al iles/po al/140249122/5._McHugh_K._86-107_issue_1.pd
Ox o d Re e ence. (2017). Science and echnology. A ailable a
h ps://www.ox o d e e ence.com/page/134
(as ci ed in McHugh, 2024, p. 88).
Poppe , K. (2008). The wo undamen al p oblems o he heo y o knowledge (T. E. Hansen, Ed.; A.
Pickel, T ans.). Rou ledge.
Po a, M. (2014). Occam’s Razo . In A Dic iona y o Epidemiology. Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20250926191322/h ps://www.ox o d e e ence.com/display/10.1093/ac e /9780199976720.00
1.0001/ac e -9780199976720-e-1336? skey=ZOocoh& esul =1519
Ruse, M. (1982). C ea ion Science Is No Science. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 7(3),
72-78.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/016224398200700313
Sagan, C. (1979). B oca’s b ain: Re lec ions on he omance o science. Random House.
Schindle , S. (2024). P edic i ism and a oidance o ad hoc-ness: An empi ical s udy. S udies
in His o y and Philosophy o Science, 104, 68–77.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.shpsa.2023.11.008
S ano ich, K. E. (2007). How o Think S aigh Abou Psychology. Pea son Educa ion.
Swinbu ne, R. (1997). Simplici y as e idence o u h. Ma que e Uni e si y P ess.
Tho n on, S. (2023). Ka l Poppe . In E. N. Zal a & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The S an o d
encyclopedia o philosophy (Fall 2023 ed.). S an o d Uni e si y.
h ps://pla o.s an o d.edu/a chi es/ all2023/en ies/poppe
T essoldi, P. E. (2011). Ex ao dina y claims equi e ex ao dina y e idence: The case o
non-local pe cep ion, a classical and Bayesian e iew o e idences. F on ie s in
Psychology, 2, A icle 117.
h ps://doi.o g/10.3389/ psyg.2011.00117
Blind Fai h Pa simony
9
Wikipedia con ibu o s. (2025). Occam‘s azo . In Wikipedia.
h ps://en.wikipedia.o g/w/index.php? i le=Occam%27s_ azo &oldid=1313302051
Williams, L. V. (2021). P obabili y, Choice, and Reason (1s ed.). Chapman and Hall/CRC.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1201/9781003083610
