But, if it is misunderstood, it can lead to oversimplification. Methinks that we have all too much of that already. It has been used by theists to support their ideas, i.e., since God is the simplest explanation for the origin of the Universe and life, then that must be true.
Our investigation into life and nature often reveals more and more complexity and depth. We try to utilize linear concepts and language to interpret that, and that's fine, but it is subject to our methods, instruments and the nature of our language/concepts. On a microcosmic scale, you could say that the number of variables in any given situation is actually a potentially infinite amount and the real nature of that interrelationship is beyond sequential, linear thinking and processes, so yes, simplicity has its place, but it really proves to not be a maxim to be taken too far or out of context.
I am not necessarily refuting your point, but I do think the essence of the concept may be more complex than that, pun intended. It may still have some philosophical value, but further investigation shows that the Razor can cut both ways.
However, I agree that simplicity has an elegance and usefulness if you put the emphasis on "the number of assumptions" and the word "unlikely" as per your statement.
Theories with the fewest assumptions are often preferred to those positing more, a heuristic often called "Occam's razor." This kind of argument has been used on both sides of the creationism vs. evolution debate (is natural selection or divine creation the more parsimonious theory?) and in at least one reductio ad absurdum argument against religion. Simple theories have many advantages: they are often falsifiable or motivate various predictions, and can be easily communicated as well as widely understood.
Snip...
So where did Occam's Razor go wrong?
Occam's Razor is actually a vestigial remnant of medieval science. It is literally a historical artifact: William of Ockham employed this principle in his own 13th century work on divine omnipotence and other topics "resistant" to scientific methods. The continuing use of parsimony in modern science is an atavistic practice equivalent to a cardiologist resorting to bloodletting when heart medication doesn't work.
And it is in the life sciences where Occam's razor cuts most sharply in the wrong direction, for at least three reasons.
1) First, life itself is a fascinating example of nature's penchant for complexity. If parsimony applies anywhere, it is not here.
2) Second, evolution doesn't design organisms as an engineer might - instead, organisms carry their evolutionary history along with them, advantages and disadvantages alike (your appendix is the price you pay for all your inherited immunity to disease). Thus life appears to result from a cascading "complexifying" process - an understanding of organisms at the macroscale will be anything but simple.
3) Third, we know that the even the simplest rules of life (click the button at the upper left, labelled "Enjoy Life" ) can give rise to intractable complexity. Unless you're a biophysicist, the mechanisms at your preferred level of analysis are likely to be incredibly heterogenous and complex, even at their simplest.
https://scienceblogs.com/developingintelligence/2007/05/14/why-the-simplest-theory-is-alm
= new reply since forum marked as read
