Occam’s shortcomings

Michael Sherlock’s assertion that “daimonic” explanations violate a basic principle of investigation because Occam’s Razor is a more reliable approach by which to determine truth [ FT410:72] is not exactly in the fortean spirit, at least in my view. Occam’s Razor certainly has its use, but also its limitations. There was a time when Occam’s Razor took it for granted that our Earth is flat because it looked flat.

Having purchased a copy of Merrily Harpur’s book Mystery Big Cats many years ago and read it thoroughly more than once, I can fully understand the rationality behind her arguments. That is what matters because an open mind is the bedrock of fortean enquiry. But humans are complex creatures; for example, according to the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, one’s political allegiance is determined less by social influences and more by genetics.

If correct, then that is a remarkable discovery for social science to have made, particularly in view of the fact that our increasingly politically polarised world sadly is allowing little or no room for differences of opinion. It seems that genetics also governs a predilection towards obsessive rationality. But at the other end of the spectrum, genetics also determines a predilection towards an interest in the paranormal or the unexplained. The ideal fortean position should be somewhere in between. So perhaps forteans, like witches, are born and not made!

Consequently, one should be suspicious of dyed-in-the-wool sceptics who masquerade as forteans. Perhaps as a consequence of their genetic blueprint these individuals are uncomfortable with ambiguity and crave the safe haven of certainty. And that is fine. Tolerance recognises and accepts diversity and I personally know a few of these types who naturally gravitated towards humanism and joined rationalist societies. This is why we should be wary, if we can, of soundbites and slogans. Their snappy conciseness can be dangerously seductive, not only both to shallow thinkers and deep thinkers, but also to the socially liberal and the socially conservative.

One example of such soundbite simplicity is the statement that “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”, which is usually delivered with great conviction and accompanied by an air of smugness. The appeal of this particular fallacy is because often it tends to be true. If in the process of repairing one’s ripped trousers in a field of haystacks the needle is lost, then one would be correct in saying that the absence of the needle is certainly not evidence of absence.

But if one then invokes the same maxim to argue that the absence of little green men on the Moon supports the hypothesis that such an exotic species inhabits the lunar surface, then that indeed is fallacious reasoning. The same can be said of an empty cupboard in your kitchen. If it is clearly empty then no amount of a Schrödinger’s Cat argument will make it well-stocked. That is Occam’s Razor at its sharpest. John Chordman

Sheffield, South Yorkshire