Who said the simplest explanation is the best

In Paul Dirac wrote " The research worker, in his effort to express the fundamental laws of Nature in mathematical form, should strive mainly for mathematical beauty. It often happens that the requirements of simplicity and beauty are the same, but where they clash the latter must take precedence. The law of parsimony is no substitute for insight, logic and the scientific method.

It should never be relied upon to make or defend a conclusion. As arbiters of correctness, only logical consistency and empirical evidence are absolute.

Dirac was very successful with his method. He constructed the relativistic field equation for the electron and used it to predict the positron. But he was not suggesting that physics should be based on mathematical beauty alone. He fully appreciated the need for experimental verification. The final word is of unknown origin, although it's often attributed to Einstein, himself a master of the quotable one liner:.

The pithiness of this quote disguises the fact that no one knows whether Einstein actually said it this version comes from the Reader's Digest, [US: July, UK: October? It may well be a precis of the last few pages of his "The Meaning of Relativity" 5th edition , in which he writes of his unified field theory: " In my opinion the theory here is the logically simplest relativistic field theory that is at all possible. But this does not mean that Nature might not obey a more complex theory.

A ball at the top of a hill will roll down in order to be at the point of minimum potential energy. The same principle is present in biology. If a person repeats the same action on a regular basis in response to the same cue and reward, it will become a habit as the corresponding neural pathway is formed. From then on, their brain will use less energy to complete the same action. While he did not coin the term, his characteristic way of making deductions inspired other writers to develop the heuristic.

That is better and more valuable which requires fewer, other circumstances being equal…. For if one thing were demonstrated from many and another thing from fewer equally known premises, clearly that is better which is from fewer because it makes us know quickly, just as a universal demonstration is better than particular because it produces knowledge from fewer premises. Similarly, in natural science, in moral science, and in metaphysics the best is that which needs no premises and the better that which needs the fewer, other circumstances being equal.

The simpler a hypothesis is, the more easily it can be proven or falsified. A complex explanation for a phenomenon involves many factors which can be difficult to test or lead to issues with the repeatability of an experiment. As a consequence, the simplest solution which is consistent with the existing data is preferred.

However, it is common for new data to allow hypotheses to become more complex over time. Occam's Razor Examples Explore some everyday examples of Occam's razor to better understand the concept.

Flat Tire: Nail or Slashed? Your car tire is flat when you're getting ready to leave. You consider the explanations: Likely - A nail stuck in the tire wall let the air out.

Less Likely - Someone slashed your tire. These possibilities may come to mind: Likely - It was a flash of lightning. Failed Test: Study Harder or Conspiracy? You failed an important test and want to know why.

Some explanations include: Likely - You didn't study hard enough. Less Likely - Your teacher sabotaged your grade. You walk outside to see a broken fence post outside your house. Two explanations come to mind: Possible - A moose crashed through the fence. Also Possible - An old nail rusted through. Car Accident: Distraction or Malfunction? Likely - You were distracted by your phone. Less Likely - A malfunction occurred in your car's braking system and you were unable to stop.

You consider these possible reasons: Likely - Their phone battery died. Less Likely - They're secretly mad at you for something you said but don't remember.

Spilled Trash: Hungry Dog or Burglar? When you wonder what happened, you consider: Likely - The dog got into the trash. Less Likely - A burglar broke into your house and searched your trash for sensitive documents. Headache: Dehydration or Cancer? So the reasons for preferring Copernican theory are not so clear. It certainly looked nicer: Ignoring the epicycles and other modifications, you could draw it as a pleasing system of concentric circles, as Copernicus did.

By making the orbits ellipses, Kepler got rid of all those unnecessary epicycles. This is a situation rarely if ever encountered in science. Much more often, theories are distinguished not by making fewer assumptions but different ones. Circular orbits seemed a more aesthetically pleasing and divine basis for the universe, so Kepler adduced them only with hesitation. But Darwin was not the first to propose evolution from a common ancestor his grandfather Erasmus was one of those predecessors , and his theory had to assume a much longer history of the Earth than did those which supposed divine creation.

The fact that our universe sports physical constants, such as the strength of fundamental forces, that seem oddly fine-tuned to enable life to exist, is one of the most profound puzzles in cosmology.

The judgement may then depend on where you look: Different theories may have predictive strengths in different areas.