Precisely...in those instances, Occam's Razor is being misused. There is no flaw in Occam's Razor itself, since Occam's Razor has the built-in caveat that you can multiply assumptions if it is necessary in order to make the theory consistent with the data. I would argue that this is why people who appeal to Occam's Razor in arguments for creationism are mistaken, because the creationist account is simpler but it is not more consistent with the data; therefore, it doesn't really pass the test of Occam's Razor.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Yes, but it occurs more often than just that. There is anomalous data with respect to human origins and lost civilizations (lazy anthropologists). Anomalous data regarding archaeological finds (lazy archaeologists). Anomalous data in physics--e.g., the cutting/exclusion of æther from physics frameworks (lazy physicists). Plus, much more. I'm speaking more specifically of some scientists and the paradigms that they peddle. I see holes. They make excuses and lean on Occam's Razor to dismiss evidence and facts. I've challenged institutional professors and they prefer the lazy route. Nobody wants to go against the consensus paradigm, even if it's full of holes.
Well, I would assume that you mean anomalous data like that purported in the book Forbidden Archeology by Michael Cremo. I would argue that those apparent anomalies need to be critically analyzed to see if they are genuine anomalies, and then you need to look for other similar anomalies. There's good reason to doubt the authenticity of most archeological anomalies. After the time of Darwin, they did a lot of for profit expeditions, and a lot of it was motivated by the desire for fame or money, so there were many bunk discoveries that were purported as being significant. But the more reliable discoveries and data, which doesn't have reason to be doubted, and is better documented, is generally what scientists prioritize. Anomalous data is marginalized until there is enough evidence to validate it. So, I think modern archeology and anthropology is generally reliable, but then all knowledge is only conjectures, never absolute, so you have to keep that in mind. There's a lot we don't know, will never know, and simply can't know.
As for physics, that's just a big can of worms. With a lot of it, there's just no theory to make sense of the data as of yet. I mean, all of quantum mechanics and theoretical physics has to do with reconciling pretty big anomalies, so I don't think there's too great of a tendency to ignore anomalies.