That’s also not right. It’s about assumptions. The explanation that makes the fewest assumptions is usually the right one. “Simple”, in this context, means the fewest external necessities to explain some phenomena. So, “god started the fire” might be “simpler” in its construction and interpretation, but “an electrical discharge from the sky started the fire” is “simpler” in that it doesn’t require a force external to nature.
I had understood it to mean, the more simple a theory is, the more likely it is to be true.
E.g. “organisms change through time to become the creatures that exist today” vs. “organisms change through time to become the creatures that exist today through the intelligent design of a creator.”
The former, having fewer conditions to be true, is more likely to be true.
No, Occam’s Razor doesn’t say the simpler solution is the right one. It says that when two theories compete, the simpler one is preferred.
That’s also not right. It’s about assumptions. The explanation that makes the fewest assumptions is usually the right one. “Simple”, in this context, means the fewest external necessities to explain some phenomena. So, “god started the fire” might be “simpler” in its construction and interpretation, but “an electrical discharge from the sky started the fire” is “simpler” in that it doesn’t require a force external to nature.
I had understood it to mean, the more simple a theory is, the more likely it is to be true.
E.g. “organisms change through time to become the creatures that exist today” vs. “organisms change through time to become the creatures that exist today through the intelligent design of a creator.”
The former, having fewer conditions to be true, is more likely to be true.