>>13716946see
>>13715610I think we actually agree. Occam's razor is a useful heuristic that tends to save time and money. It sometimes can work against you, such that it makes you discard a hypothesis that actually is correct-- you just didn't have all of the relevant data when you discarded it. When more information is added because of new experiments, you might scrape that old hypothesis out of Occam's sink, because it has just become the simplest available explanation for all the available data.
Now, contrast that with an idea that was discarded because it was proven false. For example, the idea that gravity accelerates a lighter weight more slowly than a heavier weight will never again get picked up, because there's no possible way it can explain the available data. But an answer discarded only because of Occam's razor may not yet be completely dead.
