Explanatory Minimalism

In the philosophy of science, this is known by the fine flinty name of parsimony:  it is the razor that Occam shaves with.  It means refraining from multiplying beyond necessity, not the explicanda  (you may go after as many of those as you please) but the explanatory principles (axioms, etc.).  A “parsimonious account” (you can almost picture the thin Cantabridgian lips  pronouncing this choice phrase) is to be esteemed above vulgar ad-hoc-ery.

This virtue is now so standard that we take it for granted.  But let us pause to consider  how odd it really is -- how distant, at any event, from our usual ways of thinking.

Thus consider the following mysteries:

(1) Who killed Colonel Mustard, and how?

(2) Who killed Cock Robin, and with what?

(3) Who stole the tarts?

In each case, a local police force investigates, independently, and manages to crack the case:

(1) Professor Plum, with a candlestick.

(2) The sparrow, with a bow & arrow.

(3) The knave of hearts.

Congratulations all round.

At this point, you might say, we’re done.  Only, enterprising Inspector LeGrand looks into the matter further, and determines that these cases are related:  Professor Plum and the sparrow were in league with each other, etc.   In one way, the picture has been complicated (something has been added, and nothing taken away); in another, simplified,  since it is easier to conceive connected facts than isolated atoms.

So far so good, and nothing to do with parsimony.   But now Doctor Zed objects:   This is mere child’s play.  Such contingent results are unimportant.  We must derive all these results from the nature of Crime itself.

We are taken aback.  Where does that come from?  It seems at best quixotic.  What motivates Doctor Zed seems quite remote from what motivates the policemen who solve actual cases. -- Though, if pressed, we must admit, that if somehow someone someday were able to pull off such a thing,  it would be quite a coup.

Only now, Herr Doktor Omega objects:   The depth of analysis is still trifling.  We must derive Crime -- and Sin -- and Violence -- and Cruelty -- each as an inevitable consequence of the nature of Evil.

This little parable is a rough summary of the past hundred years of physics, to be treated separately  if I am spared.

[here]