Occams razor

For the aerial theatre company, see Ockhams Razor The- principle refers to, and that in a hypothetical formulation
atre Company.
the facets of simplicity may work in dierent directions:
Occams razor (also written as Ockhams razor and in a simpler description may refer to a more complex hypothesis, and a more complex description may refer to a
simpler hypothesis.[lower-alpha 2]
Solomonos theory of inductive inference is a mathematically formalized Occams razor:[2][3][4][5][6][7] shorter
computable theories have more weight when calculating
the probability of the next observation, using all computable theories that perfectly describe previous observations.
In science, Occams razor is used as a heuristic technique (discovery tool) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models, rather than as an arbiter
between published models.[8][9] In the scientic method,
Occams razor is not considered an irrefutable principle
of logic or a scientic result; the preference for simplicity
in the scientic method is based on the falsiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon,
Andreas Cellarius's illustration of the Copernican system, from there is always an innite number of possible and more
the Harmonia Macrocosmica (1708). The motions of the sun, complex alternatives, because one can always burden
moon and other solar system planets can be calculated using a
failing explanations with ad hoc hypothesis to prevent
geocentric model (the earth is at the center) or using a heliocentric
them from being falsied; therefore, simpler theories are
model (the sun is at the center). Both work, but the geocento more complex ones because they are more
tric system requires many more assumptions than the heliocen- preferable
[1][10][11]
testable.
tric system, which has only seven. This was pointed out in a
preface to Copernicus' rst edition of De revolutionibus orbium
coelestium.

1 History

Latin lex parsimoniae, which means 'law of parsimony') is

a problem-solving principle devised by William of Ockham (c. 12871347), who was an English Franciscan
friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian. The principle states that among competing hypotheses that predict
equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should
be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove to provide better predictions, butin the
absence of dierences in predictive abilitythe fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

The term Occams razor rst appeared in 1852 in the

works of Sir William Hamilton, 9th Baronet (1788
1856), centuries after William of Ockham's death in
1347.[12] Ockham did not invent this razorits association with him may be due to the frequency and eectiveness with which he used it (Ariew 1976). Ockham stated
the principle in various ways, but the most popular version, Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity
(Non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate) was formuThe application of the principle can be used to shift the
lated by the Irish Franciscan philosopher John Punch in
burden of proof in a discussion. However, Alan Baker,
his 1639 commentary on the works of Duns Scotus.[13]
who suggests this in the online Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy, is careful to point out that his suggestion
should not be taken generally, but only as it applies in a 1.1 Formulations before Ockham
particular context, that is: philosophers who argue in opposition to metaphysical theories that involve an allegedly The origins of what has come to be known as Occams rasuperuous ontological apparatus.[lower-alpha 1]
zor are traceable to the works of earlier philosophers such
Baker then notices that principles, including Occams ra- as John Duns Scotus (12651308), Robert Grosseteste
zor, are often expressed in a way that is unclear regarding (1175-1253), Maimonides (Moses ben-Maimon, 1138
which facet of simplicityparsimony or elegancethe 1204), and even Aristotle (384322 BC).[14][15] Aristo1

HISTORY

logician rests chiey on the maxim attributed to him and

known as Ockhams razor. The term razor refers to distinguishing between two hypotheses either by shaving
away unnecessary assumptions or cutting apart two similar conclusions.
While it has been claimed that Ockhams razor is not
found in any of his writings,[20] one can cite statements
Part of a page from Duns Scotus book Ordinatio: "Pluralitas non such as Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate
est ponenda sine necessitate", i.e., Plurality is not to be posited [Plurality must never be posited without necessity], which
occurs in his theological work on the 'Sentences of Pewithout necessity
ter Lombard' (Quaestiones et decisiones in quattuor libros
Sententiarum Petri Lombardi (ed. Lugd., 1495), i, dist.
tle writes in his Posterior Analytics, We may assume the 27, qu. 2, K).
superiority ceteris paribus [other things being equal] of
Nevertheless, the precise words sometimes attributed
the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or
to Ockham, entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter nehypotheses.[16] Ptolemy (c. AD 90 c. AD 168) stated,
cessitatem (entities must not be multiplied beyond
We consider it a good principle to explain the phenom[21]
are absent in his extant works;[22] this parnecessity),
ena by the simplest hypothesis possible.[17]
ticular phrasing comes from John Punch,[23] who dePhrases such as It is vain to do with more what can be scribed the principle as a common axiom (axioma vuldone with fewer and A plurality is not to be posited gare) of the Scholastics.[13] Ockhams contribution seems
without necessity were commonplace in 13th-century to be to restrict the operation of this principle in matscholastic writing.[17] Robert Grosseteste, in Commen- ters pertaining to miracles and Gods power: so, in the
tary on [Aristotles] the Posterior Analytics Books (Com- Eucharist, a plurality of miracles is possible, simply bementarius in Posteriorum Analyticorum Libros) (c. 1217 cause it pleases God.[17]
1220), declares: That is better and more valuable which
This principle is sometimes phrased as pluralitas non est
requires fewer, other circumstances being equal... For
ponenda sine necessitate (plurality should not be posited
if one thing were demonstrated from many and another
without necessity).[24] In his Summa Totius Logicae, i.
thing from fewer equally known premises, clearly that
12, Ockham cites the principle of economy, Frustra t
is better which is from fewer because it makes us know
per plura quod potest eri per pauciora (It is futile to do
quickly, just as a universal demonstration is better than
with more things that which can be done with fewer).
particular because it produces knowledge from fewer
(Thorburn, 1918, pp. 35253; Kneale and Kneale, 1962,
premises. Similarly in natural science, in moral scip. 243.)
ence, and in metaphysics the best is that which needs
no premises and the better that which needs the fewer,
other circumstances being equal.[18] The Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas (12251274) states that it is 1.3 Later formulations
superuous to suppose that what can be accounted for by
a few principles has been produced by many. Aquinas To quote Isaac Newton, We are to admit no more causes
uses this principle to construct an objection to Gods ex- of natural things than such as are both true and sucient
istence, an objection that he in turn answers and refutes to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natgenerally (cf. quinque viae), and specically, through ural eects we must, as far as possible, assign the same
an argument based on causality.[19] Hence, Aquinas ac- causes.[25][26]
knowledges the principle that today is known as Occams
Bertrand Russell oers a particular version of Occams
razor, but prefers causal explanations to other simple exrazor: Whenever possible, substitute constructions out
planations (cf. also Correlation does not imply causaof known entities for inferences to unknown entities.[27]
tion).
Around 1960, Ray Solomono founded the theory of
The Indian Hindu philosopher Madhva in verse 400 of his
universal inductive inference, the theory of predicVishnu-Tattva-Nirnaya says: "dvidhAkalpane kalpanAtion based on observations; for example, predicting the
gauravamiti" (To make two suppositions when one is
next symbol based upon a given series of symbols.
enough is to err by way of excessive supposition).
The only assumption is that the environment follows
some unknown but computable probability distribution.
This theory is a mathematical formalization of Occams
1.2 Ockham
razor.[2][3][4][5][28]
to Occams razor is
William of Ockham (circa 12871347) was an English Another technical approach
[29]
ontological
parsimony.
Franciscan friar and theologian, an inuential medieval
philosopher and a nominalist. His popular fame as a great The widespread laypersons formulation that the sim-

2.2

Empirical

plest explanation is usually the correct one appears to conclusions more often than not.
have been derived from Occams razor.

Justications

Beginning in the 20th century, epistemological justications based on induction, logic, pragmatism, and especially probability theory have become more popular
among philosophers.

2.1

Aesthetic

Prior to the 20th century, it was a commonly held belief

that nature itself was simple and that simpler hypotheses
about nature were thus more likely to be true. This notion
was deeply rooted in the aesthetic value simplicity holds
for human thought and the justications presented for it
often drew from theology. Thomas Aquinas made this
argument in the 13th century, writing, If a thing can be
done adequately by means of one, it is superuous to do it
by means of several; for we observe that nature does not
employ two instruments [if] one suces.[30]

2.2

Empirical

Occams razor has gained strong empirical support in

helping to converge on better theories (see Applications
section below for some examples).
In the related concept of overtting, excessively complex
models are aected by statistical noise (a problem also
known as the bias-variance trade-o), whereas simpler
models may capture the underlying structure better and
may thus have better predictive performance. It is, however, often dicult to deduce which part of the data is
noise (cf. model selection, test set, minimum description
length, Bayesian inference, etc.).
2.2.1

Testing the razor

The razors statement that other things being equal, simpler explanations are generally better than more complex
ones is amenable to empirical testing. Another interpretation of the razors statement would be that simpler
hypotheses (not conclusions, i.e., explanations) are generally better than the complex ones. The procedure to
test the former interpretation would compare the track
records of simple and comparatively complex explanations. If one accepts the rst interpretation, the validity
of Occams razor as a tool would then have to be rejected
if the more complex explanations were more often correct than the less complex ones (while the converse would
lend support to its use). If the latter interpretation is accepted, the validity of Occams razor as a tool could possibly be accepted if the simpler hypotheses led to correct

Possible explanations can become needlessly complex. It is coherent, for instance, to add the involvement of leprechauns to any
explanation, but Occams razor would prevent such additions unless they were necessary.

In the history of competing hypotheses, the simpler hypotheses have led to mathematically rigorous and empirically veriable theories. In the history of competing explanations, this is not the caseat least not generally. Some increases in complexity are sometimes necessary. So there remains a justied general bias toward
the simpler of two competing explanations. To understand why, consider that for each accepted explanation
of a phenomenon, there is always an innite number of
possible, more complex, and ultimately incorrect, alternatives. This is so because one can always burden failing
explanations with ad hoc hypothesis. Ad hoc hypotheses
are justications that prevent theories from being falsied. Even other empirical criteria, such as consilience,
can never truly eliminate such explanations as competition. Each true explanation, then, may have had many
alternatives that were simpler and false, but also an innite number of alternatives that were more complex and
false. But if an alternate ad hoc hypothesis were indeed
justiable, its implicit conclusions would be empirically
veriable. On a commonly accepted repeatability principle, these alternate theories have never been observed
and continue to escape observation. In addition, one does
not say an explanation is true if it has not withstood this
principle.
Put another way, any new, and even more complex, theory can still possibly be true. For example, if an individual makes supernatural claims that leprechauns were
responsible for breaking a vase, the simpler explanation
would be that he is mistaken, but ongoing ad hoc justications (e.g., "... and thats not me on the lm; they
tampered with that, too.) successfully prevent outright
falsication. This endless supply of elaborate competing

2 JUSTIFICATIONS

explanations, called saving hypotheses, cannot be ruled the predictions it makes are sharp.[35] The model they
outbut by using Occams razor.[31][32][33]
propose balances the precision of a theorys predictions
against their sharpnesspreferring theories that sharply
make correct predictions over theories that accommo2.3 Practical considerations and pragma- date a wide range of other possible results. This, again,
reects the mathematical relationship between key contism
cepts in Bayesian inference (namely marginal probability,
conditional probability, and posterior probability).
See also: pragmatism and problem of induction
The common form of the razor, used to distinguish be- 2.5 Other philosophers
tween equally explanatory hypotheses, may be supported
by the practical fact that simpler theories are easier to un- 2.5.1 Karl Popper
derstand.
Some argue that Occams razor is not an inference-driven Karl Popper argues that a preference for simple theomodel, but a heuristic maxim for choosing among other ries need not appeal to practical or aesthetic considerations. Our preference for simplicity may be justied
models and instead underlies induction.
by its falsiability criterion: we prefer simpler theories
Alternatively, if one wants to have reasonable discussion
to more complex ones because their empirical content
one may be practically forced to accept Occams razor
is greater; and because they are better testable (Popper
in the same way one is simply forced to accept the laws
1992). The idea here is that a simple theory applies to
of thought and inductive reasoning (given the problem of
more cases than a more complex one, and is thus more
induction). Philosopher Elliott Sober states that not even
easily falsiable. This is again comparing a simple thereason itself can be justied on any reasonable grounds,
ory to a more complex theory where both explain the data
and that we must start with rst principles of some kind
equally well.
(otherwise an innite regress occurs).
The pragmatist may go on, as David Hume did on the
topic of induction, that there is no satisfying alternative
to granting this premise. Though one may claim that Occams razor is invalid as a premise that helps regulate theories, putting this doubt into practice would mean doubting whether every step forward will result in locomotion
or a nuclear explosion. In other words: Whats the alternative?"

2.4

Mathematical

One justication of Occams razor is a direct result of basic probability theory. By denition, all assumptions introduce possibilities for error; if an assumption does not
improve the accuracy of a theory, its only eect is to increase the probability that the overall theory is wrong.

2.5.2 Elliott Sober

The philosopher of science Elliott Sober once argued
along the same lines as Popper, tying simplicity with
informativeness": The simplest theory is the more informative, in the sense that it requires less information to a question.[36] He has since rejected this account of simplicity, purportedly because it fails to provide an epistemic justication for simplicity. He now believes that simplicity considerations (and considerations
of parsimony in particular) do not count unless they reect something more fundamental. Philosophers, he suggests, may have made the error of hypostatizing simplicity (i.e., endowed it with a sui generis existence), when it
has meaning only when embedded in a specic context
(Sober 1992). If we fail to justify simplicity considerations on the basis of the context in which we use them,
we may have no non-circular justication: Just as the
question 'why be rational?' may have no non-circular answer, the same may be true of the question 'why should
simplicity be considered in evaluating the plausibility of
hypotheses?'"[37]

There have also been other attempts to derive Occams

razor from probability theory, including notable attempts
made by Harold Jereys and E. T. Jaynes. The probabilistic (Bayesian) basis for Occams razor is elaborated
by David J. C. MacKay in chapter 28 of his book Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms,[34]
where he emphasises that a prior bias in favour of simpler models is not required.
2.5.3 Richard Swinburne

William H. Jeerys (no relation to Harold Jereys) and

James O. Berger (1991) generalize and quantify the orig- Richard Swinburne argues for simplicity on logical
inal formulations assumptions concept as the degree grounds:
to which a proposition is unnecessarily accommodating
... the simplest hypothesis proposed as
to possible observable data.[35] They state, A hypothesis
with fewer adjustable parameters will automatically have
an explanation of phenomena is more likely
an enhanced posterior probability, due to the fact that
to be the true one than is any other available

3.1

Science and the scientic method

hypothesis, that its predictions are more likely
to be true than those of any other available
hypothesis, and that it is an ultimate a priori
epistemic principle that simplicity is evidence
for truth.
Swinburne 1997

According to Swinburne, since our choice of theory cannot be determined by data (see Underdetermination and
Quine-Duhem thesis), we must rely on some criterion to
determine which theory to use. Since it is absurd to have
no logical method for settling on one hypothesis amongst
an innite number of equally data-compliant hypotheses,
we should choose the simplest theory: Either science is
irrational [in the way it judges theories and predictions
probable] or the principle of simplicity is a fundamental
synthetic a priori truth. (Swinburne 1997).
2.5.4

Ludwig Wittgenstein

From the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus:

3.328 If a sign is not necessary then it is meaningless. That is the meaning of Occams Razor.
(If everything in the symbolism works as
though a sign had meaning, then it has meaning.)
4.04 In the proposition there must be exactly as
many things distinguishable as there are in the state
of aairs which it represents. They must both possess the same logical (mathematical) multiplicity
(cf. Hertzs Mechanics, on Dynamic Models).

5
an arbiter between published models.[8][9] In physics, parsimony was an important heuristic in Albert Einstein's
formulation of special relativity,[38][39] in the development and application of the principle of least action by
Pierre Louis Maupertuis and Leonhard Euler,[40] and in
the development of quantum mechanics by Max Planck,
Werner Heisenberg and Louis de Broglie.[9][41]
In chemistry, Occams razor is often an important heuristic when developing a model of a reaction mechanism.[42][43] Although it is useful as a heuristic in developing models of reaction mechanisms, it has been shown
to fail as a criterion for selecting among some selected
published models.[9] In this context, Einstein himself
expressed caution when he formulated Einsteins Constraint: It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal
of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as
simple and as few as possible without having to surrender
the adequate representation of a single datum of experience. An often-quoted version of this constraint (which
cannot be veried as posited by Einstein himself)[44] says
Everything should be kept as simple as possible, but no
simpler.
In the scientic method, parsimony is an epistemological,
metaphysical or heuristic preference, not an irrefutable
principle of logic or a scientic result.[1][10][45] As a logical principle, Occams razor would demand that scientists accept the simplest possible theoretical explanation
for existing data. However, science has shown repeatedly that future data often support more complex theories than do existing data. Science prefers the simplest
explanation that is consistent with the data available at
a given time, but the simplest explanation may be ruled
out as new data become available.[8][10] That is, science is
open to the possibility that future experiments might support more complex theories than demanded by current
data and is more interested in designing experiments to
discriminate between competing theories than favoring
one theory over another based merely on philosophical
principles.[1][10][11]

5.47321 Occams Razor is, of course, not an arbitrary rule nor one justied by its practical success.
It simply says that unnecessary elements in a symbolism mean nothing. Signs which serve one pur- When scientists use the idea of parsimony, it has meaning
pose are logically equivalent; signs which serve no only in a very specic context of inquiry. Several background assumptions are required for parsimony to conpurpose are logically meaningless.
nect with plausibility in a particular research problem.
The reasonableness of parsimony in one research context
and on the related concept of simplicity":
may have nothing to do with its reasonableness in another.
It is a mistake to think that there is a single global princi 6.363 The procedure of induction consists in accept- ple that spans diverse subject matter.[11]
ing as true the simplest law that can be reconciled
It has been suggested that Occams razor is a widely
with our experiences.
accepted example of extraevidential consideration, even
though it is entirely a metaphysical assumption. There is
little empirical evidence that the world is actually simple
3 Applications
or that simple accounts are more likely to be true than
complex ones.[46]

3.1

Science and the scientic method

Most of the time, Occams razor is a conservative tool,

cutting out crazy, complicated constructions and assuring
In science, Occams razor is used as a heuristic to guide
that hypotheses are grounded in the science of the day,
scientists in developing theoretical models rather than as

3 APPLICATIONS

thus yielding normal science: models of explanation

and prediction. There are, however, notable exceptions
where Occams razor turns a conservative scientist into a
reluctant revolutionary. For example, Max Planck interpolated between the Wien and Jeans radiation laws and
used Occams razor logic to formulate the quantum hypothesis, even resisting that hypothesis as it became more
obvious that it was correct.[9]

If multiple models of natural law make exactly the same

testable predictions, they are equivalent and there is no
need for parsimony to choose a preferred one. For example, Newtonian, Hamiltonian and Lagrangian classical mechanics are equivalent. Physicists have no interest
in using Occams razor to say the other two are wrong.
Likewise, there is no demand for simplicity principles to
arbitrate between wave and matrix formulations of quantum mechanics. Science often does not demand arbitraAppeals to simplicity were used to argue against the phemodels that make the
nomena of meteorites, ball lightning, continental drift, tion or selection criteria between
same testable predictions.[10]
and reverse transcriptase. One can argue for atomic
building blocks for matter, because it provides a simpler
explanation for the observed reversibility of both mixing and chemical reactions as simple separation and rear- 3.2 Biology
rangements of atomic building blocks. At the time, however, the atomic theory was considered more complex be- Biologists or philosophers of biology use Occams razor
cause it implied the existence of invisible particles that in either of two contexts both in evolutionary biology: the
had not been directly detected. Ernst Mach and the logi- units of selection controversy and systematics. George
cal positivists rejected John Dalton's atomic theory until C. Williams in his book Adaptation and Natural Selection
the reality of atoms was more evident in Brownian mo- (1966) argues that the best way to explain altruism among
tion, as shown by Albert Einstein.[47]
animals is based on low-level (i.e., individual) selection
In the same way, postulating the aether is more complex
than transmission of light through a vacuum. At the time,
however, all known waves propagated through a physical medium, and it seemed simpler to postulate the existence of a medium than to theorize about wave propagation without a medium. Likewise, Newtons idea of light
particles seemed simpler than Christiaan Huygenss idea
of waves, so many favored it. In this case, as it turned out,
neither the wavenor the particleexplanation alone
suces, as light behaves like waves and like particles.

as opposed to high-level group selection. Altruism is dened by some evolutionary biologists (e.g., R. Alexander,
1987; W. D. Hamilton, 1964) as behavior that is benecial to others (or to the group) at a cost to the individual,
and many posit individual selection as the mechanism that
explains altruism solely in terms of the behaviors of individual organisms acting in their own self-interest (or in
the interest of their genes, via kin selection). Williams
was arguing against the perspective of others who propose selection at the level of the group as an evolutionary
mechanism that selects for altruistic traits (e.g., D. S. Wilson & E. O. Wilson, 2007). The basis for Williams contention is that of the two, individual selection is the more
parsimonious theory. In doing so he is invoking a variant
of Occams razor known as Morgans Canon: In no case
is an animal activity to be interpreted in terms of higher
psychological processes, if it can be fairly interpreted in
terms of processes which stand lower in the scale of psychological evolution and development. (Morgan 1903).

Three axioms presupposed by the scientic method are

realism (the existence of objective reality), the existence
of natural laws, and the constancy of natural law. Rather
than depend on provability of these axioms, science depends on the fact that they have not been objectively falsied. Occams razor and parsimony support, but do not
prove, these axioms of science. The general principle of
science is that theories (or models) of natural law must
be consistent with repeatable experimental observations.
This ultimate arbiter (selection criterion) rests upon the However, more recent biological analyses, such as
Richard Dawkins' The Selsh Gene, have contended that
axioms mentioned above.[10]
Morgans Canon is not the simplest and most basic explaThere are examples where Occams razor would have fanation. Dawkins argues the way evolution works is that
vored the wrong theory given the available data. Simthe genes propagated in most copies end up determining
plicity principles are useful philosophical preferences for
the development of that particular species, i.e., natural sechoosing a more likely theory from among several possilection turns out to select specic genes, and this is really
bilities that are all consistent with available data. A sinthe fundamental underlying principle, that automatically
gle instance of Occams razor favoring a wrong theory
gives individual and group selection as emergent features
falsies the razor as a general principle.[10] Michael Lee
of evolution.
and others[48] provide cases in which a parsimonious approach does not guarantee a correct conclusion and, if Zoology provides an example. Muskoxen, when threatbased on incorrect working hypotheses or interpretations ened by wolves, form a circle with the males on the outof incomplete data, may even strongly support a false side and the females and young on the inside. This is
conclusion. Lee states, When parsimony ceases to be an example of a behavior by the males that seems to be
a guideline and is instead elevated to an ex cathedra pro- altruistic. The behavior is disadvantageous to them individually but benecial to the group as a whole and was
nouncement, parsimony analysis ceases to be science.
thus seen by some to support the group selection theory.

3.3

Medicine

However, a much better explanation immediately oers

itself once one considers that natural selection works on
genes. If the male musk ox runs o leaving his ospring
to the wolves, his genes do not propagate. If, however,
he ghts, his genes may live on in his ospring. Thus,
the stay-and-ght gene prevails. This is an example of
kin selection. An underlying general principle thus oers
a much simpler explanation, without retreating to special
principles as group selection.
Systematics is the branch of biology that attempts to establish genealogical relationships among organisms. It
is also concerned with their classication. There are
three primary camps in systematics: cladists, pheneticists, and evolutionary taxonomists. The cladists hold that
genealogy alone should determine classication and pheneticists contend that similarity over propinquity of descent is the determining criterion while evolutionary taxonomists say that both genealogy and similarity count in
classication.[49]
It is among the cladists that Occams razor is to be found,
although their term for it is cladistic parsimony. Cladistic parsimony (or maximum parsimony) is a method
of phylogenetic inference in the construction of types
of phylogenetic trees (more specically, cladograms).
Cladograms are branching, tree-like structures used to
represent lines of descent based on one or more evolutionary changes. Cladistic parsimony is used to support the
hypotheses that require the fewest evolutionary changes.
For some types of tree, it consistently produces the wrong
results, regardless of how much data is collected (this is
called long branch attraction). For a full treatment of
cladistic parsimony, see Elliott Sober's Reconstructing the
Past: Parsimony, Evolution, and Inference (1988). For a
discussion of both uses of Occams razor in biology, see
Sobers article Lets Razor Ockhams Razor (1990).
Other methods for inferring evolutionary relationships
use parsimony in a more traditional way. Likelihood
methods for phylogeny use parsimony as they do for all
likelihood tests, with hypotheses requiring few diering
parameters (i.e., numbers of dierent rates of character
change or dierent frequencies of character state transitions) being treated as null hypotheses relative to hypotheses requiring many diering parameters. Thus, complex
hypotheses must predict data much better than do simple hypotheses before researchers reject the simple hypotheses. Recent advances employ information theory, a
close cousin of likelihood, which uses Occams razor in
the same way.
Francis Crick has commented on potential limitations of
Occams razor in biology. He advances the argument that
because biological systems are the products of (an ongoing) natural selection, the mechanisms are not necessarily
optimal in an obvious sense. He cautions: While Ockhams razor is a useful tool in the physical sciences, it can
be a very dangerous implement in biology. It is thus very
rash to use simplicity and elegance as a guide in biological

7
research.[50]
In biogeography, parsimony is used to infer ancient
migrations of species or populations by observing the
geographic distribution and relationships of existing
organisms. Given the phylogenetic tree, ancestral migrations are inferred to be those that require the minimum
amount of total movement.

3.3 Medicine
When discussing Occams razor in contemporary
medicine, doctors and philosophers of medicine speak of
diagnostic parsimony. Diagnostic parsimony advocates
that when diagnosing a given injury, ailment, illness,
or disease a doctor should strive to look for the fewest
possible causes that account for all the symptoms. This
philosophy is one of several demonstrated in the popular
medical adage when you hear hoofbeats behind you,
think horses, not zebras". While diagnostic parsimony
might often be benecial, credence should also be given
to the counter-argument modernly known as Hickams
dictum, which succinctly states that, Patients can have
as many diseases as they damn well please. It is often
statistically more likely that a patient has several common
diseases rather than a single rarer disease that explains
myriad symptoms. Also, independently of statistical
likelihood, some patients do in fact turn out to have
multiple diseases, which by common sense nullies the
approach of insisting to explain any given collection of
symptoms with one disease.
These misgivings emerge from simple probability
theorywhich is already taken into account in many
modern variations of the razorand from the fact that
the loss function is much greater in medicine than in
most of general science. Because misdiagnosis can result
in the loss of a persons health and potentially life, it
is considered better to test and pursue all reasonable
theories even if there is some theory that appears the
most likely.
Diagnostic parsimony and the counterbalance it nds in
Hickams dictum have very important implications in
medical practice. Any set of symptoms could be indicative of a range of possible diseases and disease combinations; though at no point is a diagnosis rejected or accepted just on the basis of one disease appearing more
likely than another, the continuous ow of hypothesis formulation, testing and modication benets greatly from
estimates regarding which diseases (or sets of diseases)
are relatively more likely responsible for a set of symptoms, given the patients environment, habits, medical
history, and so on. For example, if a hypothetical patients immediately apparent symptoms include fatigue
and cirrhosis and they test negative for hepatitis C, their
doctor might formulate a working hypothesis that the cirrhosis was caused by their drinking problem, and then
seek symptoms and perform tests to formulate and rule

3 APPLICATIONS

out hypotheses as to what has been causing the fatigue;

but if the doctor were to further discover that the patients
breath inexplicably smells of garlic and they are suering
from pulmonary edema, they might decide to test for the
relatively rare condition of selenium poisoning.

3.4

Religion

Main article: Existence of God

In the philosophy of religion, Occams razor is sometimes
applied to the existence of God. William of Ockham
himself was a Christian. He believed in God, and in the
authority of Scripture; he writes that nothing ought to
be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident
(literally, known through itself) or known by experience
or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture.[51] Ockham believed that an explanation has no sucient basis
in reality when it does not harmonize with reason, experience, or the Bible. However, unlike many theologians of
his time, Ockham did not believe God could be logically
proven with arguments. To Ockham, science was a matter of discovery, but theology was a matter of revelation
and faith. He states: only faith gives us access to theological truths. The ways of God are not open to reason,
for God has freely chosen to create a world and establish
a way of salvation within it apart from any necessary laws
that human logic or rationality can uncover.[52]

self-necessary rst principle, as was shown in

the body of the Article.

Rather than argue for the necessity of a god, some theists base their belief upon grounds independent of, or
prior to, reason, making Occams razor irrelevant. This
was the stance of Sren Kierkegaard, who viewed belief in God as a leap of faith that sometimes directly
opposed reason.[54] This is also the doctrine of Gordon
Clark's presuppositional apologetics, with the exception
that Clark never thought the leap of faith was contrary to
reason (see also Fideism).
Various arguments in favour of God establish God
as a useful or even necessary assumption. Contrastingly,some atheists hold rmly to the belief that assuming
the existence of God introduces unnecessary complexity
(Schmitt 2005, e.g., the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit).
Taking a nuanced position, philosopher Del Ratzsch[55]
suggests that the application of the razor to God may not
be so simple, least of all when we are comparing that hypothesis with theories postulating multiple invisible universes.[56]

Another application of the principle is to be found in the

work of George Berkeley (16851753). Berkeley was an
idealist who believed that all of reality could be explained
in terms of the mind alone. He invoked Occams razor
St. Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa Theologica, uses a
against materialism, stating that matter was not required
formulation of Occams razor to construct an objection
by his metaphysic and was thus eliminable. One potential
to the idea that God exists, which he refutes directly with
problem with this belief is that its possible, given Berke[53]
a counterargument:
leys position, to nd solipsism itself more in line with the
razor than a God-mediated world beyond a single thinker.
Further, it is superuous to suppose that
In his article Sensations and Brain Processes (1959),
what can be accounted for by a few princiJ. J. C. Smart invoked Occams razor with the aim to
ples has been produced by many. But it seems
justify his preference of the mind-brain identity theory
that everything we see in the world can be acover spirit-body dualism. Dualists state that there are two
counted for by other principles, supposing God
kinds of substances in the universe: physical (including
did not exist. For all natural things can be rethe body) and spiritual, which is non-physical. In conduced to one principle which is nature; and all
trast, identity theorists state that everything is physical,
voluntary things can be reduced to one princiincluding consciousness, and that there is nothing nonple which is human reason, or will. Therefore
physical. Though it is impossible to appreciate the spirthere is no need to suppose Gods existence.
itual when limiting oneself to the physical, Smart mainIn turn, Aquinas answers this with the quinque viae, and tained that identity theory explains all phenomena by asaddresses the particular objection above with the follow- suming only a physical reality. Subsequently, Smart has
been severely criticized for his use (or misuse of Occams
ing answer:
razor and ultimately retracted his advocacy of it in this
Since nature works for a determinate end
context. Paul Churchland (1984) states that by itself Ocunder the direction of a higher agent, whatever
cams razor is inconclusive regarding duality. In a simiis done by nature must needs be traced back
lar way, Dale Jacquette (1994) stated that Occams razor
to God, as to its rst cause. So also whatever
has been used in attempts to justify eliminativism and reis done voluntarily must also be traced back
ductionism in the philosophy of mind. Eliminativism is
to some higher cause other than human reason
the thesis that the ontology of folk psychology including
such entities as pain, joy, desire, fear, etc., are
or will, since these can change or fail; for all
eliminable in favor of an ontology of a completed neurothings that are changeable and capable of descience.
fect must be traced back to an immovable and

3.5

Penal ethics

could always choose a Turing machine with a simple operation that happened to construct ones entire theory and
In penal theory and the philosophy of punishment, parsi- would hence score highly under the razor. This has led to
mony refers specically to taking care in the distribution two opposing camps: one that believes Occams razor is
of punishment in order to avoid excessive punishment. In objective, and one that believes it is subjective.
the utilitarian approach to the philosophy of punishment,
Jeremy Bentham's parsimony principle states that any
punishment greater than is required to achieve its end is 3.6.1 Objective razor
unjust. The concept is related but not identical to the legal
concept of proportionality. Parsimony is a key considera- The minimum instruction set of a universal Turing mation of the modern restorative justice, and is a component chine requires approximately the same length descripof utilitarian approaches to punishment, as well as the tion across dierent formulations, and is small compared
prison abolition movement. Bentham believed that true to the Kolmogorov complexity of most practical theoparsimony would require punishment to be individualised ries. Marcus Hutter has used this consistency to dene
to take account of the sensibility of the individualan in- a natural Turing machine of small size as the proper
complex instruction sets in
dividual more sensitive to punishment should be given a basis for excluding arbitrarily
[61]
the
formulation
of
razors.
Describing
the program for
proportionately lesser one, since otherwise needless pain
the
universal
program
as
the
hypothesis,
and the repwould be inicted. Later utilitarian writers have tended to
resentation
of
the
evidence
as
program
data,
it has been
abandon this idea, in large part due to the impracticality
formally
proven
under
ZermeloFraenkel
set
theory that
of determining each alleged criminals relative sensitivity
the
sum
of
the
log
universal
probability
of
the model
[57]
to specic punishments.
plus the log of the probability of the data given the model
should be minimized.[62] Interpreting this as minimising
the total length of a two-part message encoding model
3.6 Probability theory and statistics
followed by data given model gives us the minimum message length (MML) principle.[63][64]
Marcus Hutters universal articial intelligence builds
upon Solomonos mathematical formalization of the ra- One possible conclusion from mixing the concepts of
Kolmogorov complexity and Occams razor is that an
zor to calculate the expected value of an action.
ideal data compressor would also be a scientic explaThere are various papers in scholarly journals deriving nation/formulation generator. Some attempts have been
formal versions of Occams razor from probability theory, made to re-derive known laws from considerations of
applying it in statistical inference, and using it to come up simplicity or compressibility.[65][66]
with criteria for penalizing complexity in statistical inference. Papers[58][59] have suggested a connection between According to Jrgen Schmidhuber, the appropriate mathematical theory of Occams razor already exists, namely,
Occams razor and Kolmogorov complexity.[60]
Solomonos theory of optimal inductive inference[67]
One of the problems with the original formulation of the and its extensions.[68] See discussions in David L. Dowes
razor is that it only applies to models with the same ex- Foreword re C. S. Wallace[69] for the subtle distinctions
planatory power (i.e., it only tells us to prefer the sim- between the algorithmic probability work of Solomono
plest of equally good models). A more general form and the MML work of Chris Wallace, and see Dowes
of the razor can be derived from Bayesian model com- MML, hybrid Bayesian network graphical models, staparison, which is based on Bayes factors and can be tistical consistency, invariance and uniqueness[70] both
used to compare models that don't t the data equally for such discussions and for (in section 4) discussions
well. These methods can sometimes optimally balance of MML and Occams razor. For a specic examthe complexity and power of a model. Generally, the ex- ple of MML as Occams razor in the problem of deciact Occam factor is intractable, but approximations such sion tree induction, see Dowe and Needhams Message
as Akaike information criterion, Bayesian information Length as an Eective Ockhams Razor in Decision Tree
criterion, Variational Bayesian methods, false discovery Induction.[71]
rate, and Laplaces method are used. Many articial intelligence researchers are now employing such techniques,
for instance through work on Occam Learning.
Statistical versions of Occams razor have a more rigorous formulation than what philosophical discussions produce. In particular, they must have a specic denition of
the term simplicity, and that denition can vary. For example, in the KolmogorovChaitin minimum description
length approach, the subject must pick a Turing machine
whose operations describe the basic operations believed
to represent simplicity by the subject. However, one

4 Controversial aspects of the razor

Occams razor is not an embargo against the positing of

any kind of entity, or a recommendation of the simplest
theory come what may.[lower-alpha 3] Occams razor is used
to adjudicate between theories that have already passed
theoretical scrutiny tests and are equally well-supported

10

6 SEE ALSO

by evidence.[lower-alpha 4] Furthermore, it may be used to

prioritize empirical testing between two equally plausible but unequally testable hypotheses; thereby minimizing costs and wastes while increasing chances of falsication of the simpler-to-test hypothesis.
Another contentious aspect of the razor is that a theory
can become more complex in terms of its structure (or
syntax), while its ontology (or semantics) becomes simpler, or vice versa.[lower-alpha 5] Quine, in a discussion on
denition, referred to these two perspectives as economy of practical expression and economy in grammar
and vocabulary, respectively.[73] The theory of relativity is often given as an example of the proliferation of
complex words to describe a simple concept.
Galileo Galilei lampooned the misuse of Occams razor in
his Dialogue. The principle is represented in the dialogue
by Simplicio. The telling point that Galileo presented
ironically was that if one really wanted to start from a
small number of entities, one could always consider the
letters of the alphabet as the fundamental entities, since
one could construct the whole of human knowledge out
of them.

and It is vain to do with fewer what requires more. A

less serious but (some might say) even more extremist
anti-razor is 'Pataphysics, the science of imaginary solutions developed by Alfred Jarry (18731907). Perhaps
the ultimate in anti-reductionism, "'Pataphysics seeks no
less than to view each event in the universe as completely
unique, subject to no laws but its own. Variations on
this theme were subsequently explored by the Argentine
writer Jorge Luis Borges in his story/mock-essay "Tln,
Uqbar, Orbis Tertius". There is also Crabtrees Bludgeon,
which cynically states that "[n]o set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however
complicated.

6 See also
Algorithmic information theory
Chekhovs gun
Common sense
Cladistics

Anti-razors

Eliminative materialism
Falsiability

Occams razor has met some opposition from people who

have considered it too extreme or rash. Walter Chatton
(c. 12901343) was a contemporary of William of Ockham (c. 12871347) who took exception to Occams razor and Ockhams use of it. In response he devised his
own anti-razor: If three things are not enough to verify
an armative proposition about things, a fourth must be
added, and so on. Although there have been a number
of philosophers who have formulated similar anti-razors
since Chattons time, no one anti-razor has perpetuated in
as much notability as Chattons anti-razor, although this
could be the case of the Late Renaissance Italian motto of
unknown attribution Se non vero, ben trovato (Even
if it is not true, it is well conceived) when referred to a
particularly artful explanation. For further information,
see Ockhams Razor and Chattons Anti-Razor (1984)
by Armand Maurer.

Framing (social sciences)

Anti-razors have also been created by Gottfried Wilhelm

Leibniz (16461716), Immanuel Kant (17241804), and
Karl Menger (19021985). Leibnizs version took the
form of a principle of plenitude, as Arthur Lovejoy has
called it: the idea being that God created the most varied and populous of possible worlds. Kant felt a need to
moderate the eects of Occams razor and thus created
his own counter-razor: The variety of beings should not
rashly be diminished.[74]

Principle of least astonishment

Karl Menger found mathematicians to be too parsimonious with regard to variables, so he formulated his Law
Against Miserliness, which took one of two forms: Entities must not be reduced to the point of inadequacy

Scientic reductionism

Greedy reductionism
Hanlons razor
Hitchenss razor
Inductive probability
KISS principle
Metaphysical naturalism
Minimum description length
Minimum message length
Newtons aming laser sword
Philosophy of science
Pseudoscience
Rationalism
Razor (philosophy)
Regress argument
Scientic method
Scientic skepticism
Simplicity

11

Notes

[1] The aim of appeals to simplicity in such contexts seem to

be more about shifting the burden of proof, and less about
refuting the less simple theory outright.[1]
[2] In analyzing simplicity, it can be dicult to keep its two
facets elegance and parsimony apart. Principles such
as Occams razor are frequently stated in a way which is
ambiguous between the two notions ... While these two
facets of simplicity are frequently conated, it is important
to treat them as distinct. One reason for doing so is that
considerations of parsimony and of elegance typically pull
in dierent directions.[1]
[3] Ockhams razor does not say that the more simple a hypothesis, the better.[72]
[4] Today, we think of the principle of parsimony as a
heuristic device. We don't assume that the simpler theory is correct and the more complex one false. We know
from experience that more often than not the theory that
requires more complicated machinations is wrong. Until proved otherwise, the more complex theory competing with a simpler explanation should be put on the back
burner, but not thrown onto the trash heap of history until
proven false.[72]
[5] While these two facets of simplicity are frequently conated, it is important to treat them as distinct. One reason
for doing so is that considerations of parsimony and of elegance typically pull in dierent directions. Postulating
extra entities may allow a theory to be formulated more
simply, while reducing the ontology of a theory may only
be possible at the price of making it syntactically more
complex.[1]

References

[1] Alan Baker (2010) [2004]. Simplicity. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. California: Stanford University.
ISSN 1095-5054.
[2] Induction: From Kolmogorov and Solomono to De
Finetti and Back to Kolmogorov JJ McCall - Metroeconomica, 2004 - Wiley Online Library.

[8] Hugh G. Gauch, Scientic Method in Practice, Cambridge

University Press, 2003, ISBN 0-521-01708-4, ISBN 9780-521-01708-4.
[9] Roald Homann, Vladimir I. Minkin, Barry K. Carpenter, Ockhams Razor and Chemistry, HYLE
International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, Vol.
3, pp. 328, (1997).
[10] Courtney A, Courtney M (2008). Comments Regarding
On the Nature Of Science"" (PDF). Physics in Canada
64 (3): 78. Retrieved 1 August 2012.
[11] Elliott Sober, Lets Razor Occams Razor, pp. 7393,
from Dudley Knowles (ed.) Explanation and Its Limits,
Cambridge University Press (1994).
[12] Vogel Carey, Toni (Oct 2010). Lewis, Rick, ed.
Parsimony (In as few words as possible)". Philosophy
Now (UK) (81). Retrieved 27 October 2012.
[13] Johannes Ponciuss commentary on John Duns Scotuss
Opus Oxoniense, book III, dist. 34, q. 1. in John Duns
Scotus Opera Omnia, vol.15, Ed. Luke Wadding, Louvain
(1639), reprinted Paris: Vives, (1894) p.483a
[14] Aristotle, Physics 189a15, On the Heavens 271a33. See
also Franklin, op cit. note 44 to chap. 9.
[15] Charlesworth, M. J. (1956). Aristotles Razor. Philosophical Studies (Ireland)
[16] Wikipedians, Complexity and Dynamics citing Richard
McKeon (tr.) Aristotles Posterior Analytics (1963) p.150
[17] James Franklin (2001). The Science of Conjecture: Evidence and Probability before Pascal. The Johns Hopkins
University Press. Chap 9. p. 241.
[18] Alistair Cameron Crombie, Robert Grosseteste and the
Origins of Experimental Science 11001700 (1953) pp.
8586
[19] SUMMA THEOLOGICA: The existence of God (Prima
Pars, Q. 2)". Newadvent.org. Retrieved 2013-03-26.
[20] What Ockham really said. Boing Boing. 2013-02-11.
Retrieved 2013-03-26.
[21] Bauer, Laurie (2007). The linguistics Students Handbook.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. p. 155.

[3] Foundations of Occams Razor and parsimony in learning

from ricoh.comD Stork - NIPS 2001 Workshop, 2001.

[22] Flew, Antony (1979). A Dictionary of Philosophy. London: Pan Books. p. 253.

[4] A.N. Soklakov (2002). Occams Razor as a formal basis for a physical theory. Foundations of Physics Letters
(Springer).

[23] Alistair Cameron Crombie (1959), Medieval and Early

Modern Philosophy, Cambridge, MA: Harvard, Vol. 2,
p. 30.

[5] J. HERNANDEZ-ORALLO (2000). Beyond the Turing

Test (PDF). Journal of Logic, Language, and ...

[24] Ockhams razor. Encyclopdia Britannica. Encyclopdia Britannica Online. 2010. Retrieved 12 June 2010.

[6] M. Hutter (2003). On the existence and convergence of

computable universal priors. Springer.

[25] Hawking, Stephen (2003). On the Shoulders of Giants.

Running Press. p. 731. ISBN 0-7624-1698-X.

[7] Samuel Rathmanner; Marcus Hutter (2011). A philosophical treatise of universal induction. Entropy 13 (6):
10761136. doi:10.3390/e13061076.

[26] Primary source: Newton (2011, p. 387) wrote the following two philosophizing rules at the beginning of part 3
of the Principia 1726 edition.

12

Regula I. Causas rerum naturalium non

plures admitti debere, quam qu & ver sint
& earum phnomenis explicandis suciant.
Regula II. Ideoque eectuum naturalium
ejusdem generis edem assignand sunt
caus, quatenus eri potest.
[27] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 'Logical Construction'
[28] On the existence and convergence of computable universal priors from arxiv.org M Hutter Algorithmic Learning
Theory, 2003 Springer.
[29] Baker, Alan (Feb 25, 2010). Edward N. Zalta, ed, ed.
Simplicity. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(Summer 2011 Edition).
[30] Pegis 1945.

REFERENCES

[45] Sober, Eliot (1994). Lets Razor Occams Razor. In

Knowles, Dudley. Explanation and Its Limits. Cambridge
University Press. pp. 7393..
[46] Naomi Oreskes, Kristin Shrader-Frechette, KenVerication, Valneth Belitz (Feb 4, 1994).
idation, and Conrmation of Numerical Models in the Earth Sciences (PDF). Science, 263
Bibcode:1994Sci...263..641O.
(5147):
641646.
doi:10.1126/science.263.5147.641 see note 25
[47] Paul Pojman (2009). Ernst Mach. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. California: Stanford University.
ISSN 1095-5054.
[48] Lee, M. S. Y. (2002): Divergent evolution, hierarchy and cladistics. Zool. Scripta 31(2): 217219.
doi:10.1046/j.1463-6409.2002.00101.xPDF fulltext

[31] Stanovich, Keith E. (2007). How to Think Straight About

Psychology. Boston: Pearson Education, pp. 1933.

[49] Sober, Elliot (1998). Reconstructing the Past: Parsimony,

Evolution, and Inference (2nd ed.). Massacusetts Institute of Technology: The MIT Press. p. 7. ISBN 0-26269144-2.

[32] Carroll, Robert T. Ad hoc hypothesis. The Skeptics Dictionary. 22 June 2008.

[50] Crick 1988, p. 146.

[33] Swinburne 1997 and Williams, Gareth T, 2008.

[51] Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford. |chapter= ignored (help).

[34] Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms (PDF).

[35] Jeerys, William H.; Berger, James O. (1991).
Ockhams Razor and Bayesian Statistics (preprint
available as Sharpening Occams Razor on a Bayesian
Strop)" (PDF). American Scientist 80: 6472.
[36] Sober, Elliott (1975). Simplicity. Oxford: Clarendon
Press (an imprint of Oxford University Press). ISBN 9780-19-824407-3
[37] Sober, Elliott (2004). What is the Problem of Simplicity?". In Arnold Zellner, Hugo A. Keuzenkamp &
Michael McAleer. Simplicity, Inference and Modeling:
Keeping it Sophisticatedly Simple. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1331. ISBN 0-521-803616. Retrieved 4 August 2012 ISBN 0-511-00748-5 (eBook
[Adobe Reader]) paper as pdf
[38] Einstein, Albert (1905). Annalen der Physik (in German) (18). pp. 63941. |chapter= ignored (help).
[39] L Nash, The Nature of the Natural Sciences, Boston: Little, Brown (1963).

[52] Dale T Irvin & Scott W Sunquist. History of World Christian Movement Volume, I: Earliest Christianity to 1453, p.
434. ISBN 9781570753961.
[53] SUMMA THEOLOGICA: The existence of God (Prima
Pars, Q. 2)". Newadvent.org. Retrieved 2013-03-26.
[54] McDonald 2005.
[55] Ratzsch, Del. Calvin..
[56] Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford. |chapter= ignored (help).
[57] Tonry, Michael (2005): Obsolescence and Immanence
in Penal Theory and Policy. Columbia Law Review 105:
12331275. PDF fulltext
[58] Chris S. Wallace and David M. Boulton; Computer Journal, Volume 11, Issue 2, 1968 Page(s):185194, An information measure for classication.
[59] Chris S. Wallace and David L. Dowe; Computer Journal,
Volume 42, Issue 4, Sep 1999 Page(s):270283, Minimum Message Length and Kolmogorov Complexity.

[40] de Maupertuis, PLM (1744). Mmoires de l'Acadmie

Royale (in French). p. 423..

[60] Nannen, Volker. A short introduction to Model Selection, Kolmogorov Complexity and Minimum Description
Length (PDF). Retrieved 2010-07-03.

[41] de Broglie, L (1925). Annales de Physique (in French)

(3/10). pp. 22128..

[61] Algorithmic Information Theory

[42] RA Jackson, Mechanism: An Introduction to the Study of

Organic Reactions, Clarendon, Oxford, 1972.
[43] BK Carpenter, Determination of Organic Reaction Mechanism, Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1984.
[44] Quote Investigator: Everything Should Be Made as Simple as Possible, But Not Simpler

[62] Paul M. B. Vitnyi and Ming Li; IEEE Transactions

on Information Theory, Volume 46, Issue 2, Mar 2000
Page(s):446464, Minimum Description Length Induction, Bayesianism and Kolmogorov Complexity.
[63] Chris S. Wallace and David M. Boulton; Computer Journal, Volume 11, Issue 2, 1968 Page(s):185194, An information measure for classication.

13

[64] Chris S. Wallace and David L. Dowe; Computer Journal,

Volume 42, Issue 4, Sep 1999 Page(s):270283, Minimum Message Length and Kolmogorov Complexity.
[65] 'Occams razor as a formal basis for a physical theory' by
Andrei N. Soklakov
[66] 'Why Occams Razor' by Russell Standish
[67] Solomono, Ray (1964). A formal theory of inductive
inference. Part I.. Information and Control 7 (122):
1964. doi:10.1016/s0019-9958(64)90223-2.

Crick, Francis H. C. (1988). What Mad Pursuit: A

Personal View of Scientic Discovery. New York,
New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-09137-7.
ISBN.
Dowe, David L.; Steve Gardner; Graham Oppy
(December 2007). Bayes not Bust! Why Simplicity is no Problem for Bayesians. British J.
for the Philosophy of Science 58 (4): 709754.
doi:10.1093/bjps/axm033. Retrieved 2007-09-24.

[68] J. Schmidhuber (2006) The New AI: General & Sound

& Relevant for Physics. In B. Goertzel and C. Pennachin,
eds.: Articial General Intelligence, pp. 177200 http://
arxiv.org/abs/cs.AI/0302012

Duda, Richard O.; Peter E. Hart; David G. Stork

(2000). Pattern Classication (2nd ed.). WileyInterscience. pp. 487489. ISBN 0-471-05669-3.
ISBN.

[69] David L. Dowe (2008): Foreword re C. S. Wallace; Computer Journal, Volume 51, Issue 5, Sept 2008 Pages:
523560.

Epstein, Robert (1984). The Principle of Parsimony and Some Applications in Psychology. Journal of Mind Behavior 5: 119130.

[70] David L. Dowe (2010): MML, hybrid Bayesian network graphical models, statistical consistency, invariance and uniqueness. A formal theory of inductive
inference. Handbook of the Philosophy of Science
(HPS Volume 7) Philosophy of Statistics, Elsevier 2010
Page(s):901982. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/
download?doi=10.1.1.185.709&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Homann, Roald; Vladimir I. Minkin; Barry K.

Carpenter (1997). Ockhams Razor and Chemistry. HYLEInternational Journal for the Philosophy of Chemistry 3: 328. Retrieved 2006-04-14.

[71] Scott Needham and David L. Dowe (2001):" Message

Length as an Eective Ockhams Razor in Decision
Tree Induction. Proc. 8th International Workshop on
Articial Intelligence and Statistics (AI+STATS 2001),
Key West, Florida, U.S.A., Jan. 2001 Page(s): 253260
http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~{}dld/Publications/
2001/Needham+Dowe2001_Ockham.pdf
[72] Robert T. Carroll. Occams Razor. The Skeptics Dictionary Last updated 18 February 2012
[73] Quine, W V O (1961). Two dogmas of empiricism.
From a logical point of view. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. pp. 2046. ISBN 0-674-32351-3.
[74] Immanuel Kant (1929). Norman Kemp-Smith transl, ed.
The Critique of Pure Reason. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 92.
Retrieved 27 October 2012. Entium varietates non temere
esse minuendas

Further reading
Ariew, Roger (1976). Ockhams Razor: A Historical
and Philosophical Analysis of Ockhams Principle of
Parsimony. Champaign-Urbana, University of Illinois.
Charlesworth, M. J. (1956). Aristotles Razor. Philosophical Studies (Ireland) 6: 105112.
doi:10.5840/philstudies1956606.
Churchland, Paul M. (1984). Matter and Consciousness. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. ISBN
0-262-53050-3. ISBN.

Jacquette, Dale (1994). Philosophy of Mind. Engleswoods Clis, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. pp.
3436. ISBN 0-13-030933-8. ISBN.
Jaynes, Edwin Thompson (1994). Model Comparison and Robustness. Probability Theory: The
Logic of Science. ISBN 0-521-59271-2.
Jeerys, William H.; Berger, James O. (1991).
Ockhams Razor and Bayesian Statistics (Preprint
available as Sharpening Occams Razor on a
Bayesian Strop)", (PDF). American Scientist 80:
6472.
Katz, Jerrold (1998). Realistic Rationalism. MIT
Press. ISBN 0-262-11229-9.
Kneale, William; Martha Kneale (1962). The Development of Logic. London: Oxford University
Press. p. 243. ISBN 0-19-824183-6. ISBN.
MacKay, David J. C. (2003). Information Theory, Inference and Learning Algorithms. Cambridge
University Press. ISBN 0-521-64298-1. ISBN.
Maurer, A. (1984). Ockhams Razor and Chattons
Anti-Razor. Medieval Studies 46: 463475.
McDonald, William (2005). Sren Kierkegaard.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved
2006-04-14.
Menger, Karl (1960). A Counterpart of Ockhams Razor in Pure and Applied Mathematics: Ontological Uses. Synthese 12 (4): 415.
doi:10.1007/BF00485426.

14
Morgan, C. Lloyd (1903). Other Minds than
Ours. An Introduction to Comparative Psychology
(2nd ed.). London: W. Scott. p. 59. ISBN 089093-171-2. Retrieved 2006-04-15.
Newton, Isaac (2011) [1726]. Philosophi Naturalis
Principia Mathematica (3rd ed.). London: Henry
Pemberton. ISBN 978-1-60386-435-0.
Nolan, D. (1997).
Quantitative Parsimony.
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 48 (3):
329343. doi:10.1093/bjps/48.3.329.
Pegis, A. C., translator (1945). Basic Writings of St.
Thomas Aquinas. New York: Random House. p.
129. ISBN 0-87220-380-8.

10

EXTERNAL LINKS

10 External links
What is Occams Razor? This essay distinguishes
Occams Razor (used for theories with identical predictions) from the Principle of Parsimony (which
can be applied to theories with dierent predictions).
Skeptics Dictionary: Occams Razor
Ockhams Razor, an essay at The Galilean Library
on the historical and philosophical implications by
Paul Newall.
The Razor in the Toolbox: The history, use, and
abuse of Occams razor, by Robert Novella

Popper, Karl (1992). 7. Simplicity. The Logic of

Scientic Discovery (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
pp. 121132. ISBN 84-309-0711-4.

NIPS 2001 Workshop Foundations of Occams Razor and parsimony in learning

Rodrguez-Fernndez, J. L. (1999).
Ockhams Razor. Endeavour 23 (3): 121125.
doi:10.1016/S0160-9327(99)01199-0.

Occams Razor at PlanetMath.org.

Schmitt, Gavin C. (2005). Ockhams Razor Suggests Atheism. Archived from the original on
2007-02-11. Retrieved 2006-04-15.
Smart, J. J. C. (1959). Sensations and Brain
Processes. Philosophical Review (The Philosophical Review, Vol. 68, No. 2) 68 (2): 141156.
doi:10.2307/2182164. JSTOR 2182164.
Sober, Elliott (1975). Simplicity. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Sober, Elliott (1981). The Principle of Parsimony
(PDF). British Journal for the Philosophy of Science
32 (2): 145156. doi:10.1093/bjps/32.2.145. Retrieved 4 August 2012.
Sober, Elliott (1990). Lets Razor Ockhams Razor. In Dudley Knowles. Explanation and its Limits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp.
7394. ISBN.
Sober, Elliott (2002). Zellner et al., eds. What is
the Problem of Simplicity?" (PDF). Retrieved 4 August 2012.
Swinburne, Richard (1997). Simplicity as Evidence
for Truth. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Marquette University Press. ISBN 0-87462-164-X.
Thorburn, W. M. (1918). The Myth of Occams Razor.
Mind 27 (107): 345353.
doi:10.1093/mind/XXVII.3.345.
Williams, George C. (1966). Adaptation and natural selection: A Critique of some Current Evolutionary Thought. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
University Press. ISBN 0-691-02615-7. ISBN.

Simplicity at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Disproof of parsimony as a general principle in science

15

11
11.1

Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

Text

Occams razor Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam{}s_razor?oldid=676369020 Contributors: Damian Yerrick, AxelBoldt,

Paul Drye, Trelvis, MichaelTinkler, The Cunctator, Derek Ross, Eloquence, Mav, Bryan Derksen, Zundark, The Anome, Jan Hidders,
Ed Poor, Eclecticology, Josh Grosse, Youssefsan, Tommy~enwiki, Ortolan88, SimonP, Heron, GrahamN, Hirzel, Jaknouse, Mintguy,
Youandme, R Lowry, Modemac, Bernfarr, Olivier, Someone else, Yves Junqueira, Leandrod, Mkmcconn, Lir, Michael Hardy, Cprompt,
Fred Bauder, Dante Alighieri, DIG~enwiki, LenBudney, Liftarn, MartinHarper, Nferrier, Bcrowell, Minesweeper, Kosebamse, Snoyes,
Morken (usurped), Lupinoid, Glenn, Whkoh, Bogdangiusca, LouI, Andres, Cimon Avaro, Jiang, Evercat, Jacquerie27, Rob Hooft, Arteitle, Adam Conover, Hike395, Hashar, Renamed user 4, Novum, Dying, Charles Matthews, Timwi, Stet, Ww, Dandrake, Gutza, Lord
Kenneth, Markhurd, Lfwlfw, Brantgoose, Charlesdarwin, OverZealousFan, Maximus Rex, Hyacinth, Fairandbalanced, Xaven, Optim,
Raul654, Banno, ThereIsNoSteve, Dmbaguley, Gentgeen, Robbot, JD Jacobson, Moncrief, Lowellian, Meduz, Chris Roy, Gkochanowsky,
Henrygb, AceMyth, Rursus, Geogre, Hadal, Anthony, Nagelfar, Alerante, Albatross2147, Giftlite, Smjg, Achurch, ShaunMacPherson,
Wolfkeeper, Halda, Fastssion, Dissident, Curps, Michael Devore, FeloniousMonk, Pashute, Jfdwol, Duncharris, Tom-, Joshuapaquin,
Proslaes, Eequor, Khalid hassani, Jabowery, Abu el mot~enwiki, Tagishsimon, Wmahan, Gugganij, Vadmium, CryptoDerk, Quadell, Antandrus, Zootalures, Salasks, Loremaster, Elembis, Jeshii, Kaldari, Karol Langner, TylerD, Histrion, Urhixidur, Burschik, Mschlindwein,
Sonett72, Epimetreus, Armeck, Grunt, ELApro, Reex Reaction, Lacrimosus, Jcamenisch, Blokhead, Skal, Discospinster, The PNM, Rich
Farmbrough, Phil O. Cetes, Jesper Laisen, Vsmith, Eric Shalov, Gonzalo Diethelm, Stbalbach, ESkog, ZeroOne, Sunborn, BernardSumption, Janderk, Kjoonlee, Melamed, Nabla, Brian0918, Clement Cherlin, CanisRufus, El C, PhilHibbs, Bookofjude, Sf, Guettarda, Causa
sui, Wee Jimmy, Panzuriel, Hurricane111, Smalljim, John Vandenberg, Lore Sjoberg, Mtruch, Shenme, Jung dalglish, Solemnavalanche,
A1kmm, Obradovic Goran, Jonathunder, Justinc, Mdd, Wayfarer, Licon, Dovy, Orangemarlin, Lycanthrope, OGoncho, Preuninger, Alansohn, Gary, JYolkowski, Elpincha, Mackinaw, Misodoctakleidist, Arthena, Atlant, Jeltz, Nurban, Hinotori, SlimVirgin, Fwb44, Ciaran
H, Fritzpoll, Sp00n17, Jaardon, Bantman, DreamGuy, Ombudsman, Wtmitchell, Ronark, Jheald, Sciurin, DSatz, Johntex, Galaxiaad,
RPIRED, Stephen, Feezo, Dmitry Brant, Stemonitis, BadLeprechaun, Weyes, Joelpt, OleMaster, Joriki, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ),
Mel Etitis, Woohookitty, Linas, Havermayer, Drostie, Robert K S, Pol098, Before My Ken, Meeso, Bkwillwm, Tickle me, Isnow, Kriegman, Pictureuploader, Fxer, Doric Loon, Btyner, Mandarax, Fleetham, Pete142, Graham87, Zeromaru, Super7, Cuchullain, BD2412,
Teon Don, JIP, Mendaliv, Rjwilmsi, Mayumashu, Valentinejoesmith, WCFrancis, XP1, Sdornan, MZMcBride, Fishanthrope, Darksasami, Bubba73, Brighterorange, The wub, Wikier, Sango123, Fish and karate, Billjeerys, Wragge, FlaBot, SchuminWeb, Musical
Linguist, Nihiltres, Mindloss, ReSearcher, Nickpowerz, Okilter, RexNL, Ayla, Acyso, Jrtayloriv, Nuge, Exelban, Pevernagie, Preslethe,
Svanhoosen, Evands, King of Hearts, MeI Etitis, Chobot, Bornhj, DVdm, Bgwhite, Poorsod, Wiserd911, The Rambling Man, YurikBot, Wavelength, RobotE, RussBot, Exir, Guslacerda, Bhny, Greenyoda, Pelago, Alset, Bachrach44, Welsh, Twin Bird, Chunky Rice,
SAE1962, Corbmobile, Randolf Richardson, LaraCroft NYC, Jpbowen, Ehrick, Ospalh, Nate1481, Bucketsofg, Evie em, Kewp, Ms2ger,
Light current, Zero1328, Nikkimaria, Fiskus~enwiki, Fonny, SMcCandlish, Seventy-one, Wikiwawawa, Brz7, TheQuaker, Palthrow,
Afn, Georey.landis, Argo Navis, Eaefremov, Suburbanslice, RG2, Alexandrov, Tom Morris, Karora, Psichron, SmackBot, Avonhungen, TobyK, ElectricRay, Tom Lougheed, Jasy jatere, GregChant, Alex1011, DCDuring, Dfeig, Unyoyega, Lawrencekhoo, Mishaweis,
KocjoBot~enwiki, Jagged 85, Tbonnie, Arny, DLH, Ordinant, Hoov, Tim@, Sebesta, Bonanza Jellybean, ToddDeLuca, InGearX, BenAveling, Valley2city, Bluebot, Kurykh, Keegan, Baldghoti, Spilla, Jprg1966, Thumperward, Jojo 1, CSWarren, Elyk53, Whispering,
Pete4winds, Go for it!, Alphathon, Ioscius, Fife Club, Xyzzyplugh, Stevenmitchell, Riose, MrRadioGuy, Cybercobra, Xibe, Doberman
Pharaoh, Weregerbil, Occultations, Jon Awbrey, Henning Makholm, Kendrick7, Ashi Starshade, Maas, Byelf2007, Esrever, Johnny Logic,
ArglebargleIV, Bcasterline, Anlace, Cesium 133, Loodog, Robosh, JoshuaZ, JorisvS, Joelo, Cmh, Dave Carter, Cielomobile, Silvescu, Thomas Gilling, Pfold, Grumpyyoungman01, MaximvsDecimvs, Doczilla, NThurston, Dr.K., Novangelis, DaBjork, Levineps, K,
Michaelbusch, Antonio Prates, Ascensionblade, StephenBuxton, Octane, V0rt3x, Courcelles, Schlagwerk, Tauolunga, Davidbspalding,
MonkeeSage, Taowizard, JForget, Wolfdog, Ddarby14, Markjoseph125, CmdrObot, Tanthalas39, David s gra, Sntjohnny, CBM, Nunquam Dormio, Gebrelu, Wws, Terence Lewis, WeggeBot, Maiya, Fcforrest, Gregbard, Jasperdoomen, Peterdjones, Hebrides, Tkynerd,
Skittleys, DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiC, RobGo, Danogo, Arcayne, SteveMcCluskey, Daniel Olsen, Pro Grape, Maziotis, Imprevu, Talgalili, Letranova, Malleus Fatuorum, Jdvelasc, Thijs!bot, Chacufc, Mystar, Daniel, Mojo Hand, Marek69, Wildthing61476, Maadal, Davidhorman,
Petiejoe, Gergprotect, Bethpage89, Michael A. White, Escarbot, Dalliance, EmRunTonRespNin, AntiVandalBot, WinBot, Luna Santin,
Seaphoto, Dwightwiki, Ronja Addams-Moring, Clan-destine, Perakhantu, William Knorpp, Mikenorton, Daedalus2097, Narssarssuaq,
Krishvanth, Ichaer, Sonicsuns, Fetchcomms, Hamsterlopithecus, 100110100, TallulahBelle, Dclose73, Acroterion, Aphoxema, Magioladitis, Almuayyad, VoABot II, Clivestaples, Swpb, Snowded, NigelCunningham, Boob, PeterJWagner3, Dr.Gurge, Vssun, TehBrandon,
ChazBeckett, AlmoKing, Gun Powder Ma, ClubOranje, CommonsDelinker, Dr. t, J.delanoy, Majorcats, Filll, Tylercantango, Svetovid,
DannyBoy2k, AstroHurricane001, Tlatito, TyrS, Wilsbadkarma, Maurice Carbonaro, Dkmak, Apollo8fan, Cpiral, Rumpuscat, Dispenser,
It Is Me Here, Janus Shadowsong, Bmoinlbc, Touisiau, JBFrenchhorn, OAC, HiLo48, Hpcoder, NewEnglandYankee, Antony-22, Nwbeeson, 4granite, SacredCheese, Milogardner, SemblaceII, Diego, SteveMerrick, IceDragon64, Speciate, Alan U. Kennington, Sparklism,
Jrugordon, King Lopez, VolkovBot, Morenooso, Pasixxxx, The Wild Falcon, Orthologist, Butwhatdoiknow, Featherofmaat, Tomer T,
Philip Trueman, Paulscho, Mtanti, Zamphuor, Paddling bear, Malinaccier, The Bone III, Mark v1.0, Vipinhari, Myles325a, Lk9984,
Rei-bot, Anonymous Dissident, Liko81, VoxRobotica, Saibod, Rugbychica707, LeaveSleaves, SGT141, Modocc, RiverStyx23, Cash cash,
Lova Falk, Enviroboy, Vinhtantran, Bakerstmd, EmxBot, Neparis, Kbrose, Nschoem, SieBot, Mycomp, Moonriddengirl, Malcolmxl5,
Ori, Iamthedeus, Vexorg, Dawn Bard, Yintan, Til Eulenspiegel, JohnManuel, RucasHost, Oda Mari, Arbor to SJ, Antzervos, Avnjay,
R0uge, Michael Courtney, Sunrise, DancingPhilosopher, S2000magician, Ymeta731, Hamiltondaniel, Denisarona, Escape Orbit, Francvs,
Emptymountains, Asher196, Mgothard, Invertzoo, Faithlessthewonderboy, ClueBot, Binksternet, Chicagoshim, The Thing That Should
Not Be, Runesrule, Drmies, Krazymann, Mild Bill Hiccup, SuperHamster, DragonBot, Kitsunegami, Excirial, Alexbot, Three-quarterten, Watchduck, Erebus Morgaine, Noca2plus, Sun Creator, Brews ohare, Psinu, Mikaey, Darren23, StevenDH, Wkboonec, Crowsnest,
Editortothemasses, DumZiBoT, Chris1834, Yurizuki, XLinkBot, Fastily, Spitre, Le Ptomaine, Wertuose, Gerhardvalentin, Bert Carpenter, WikHead, MarxistRebel, Billwhittaker, Parsonas, Mimarx, NCDane, VanishedUser ewrfgdg3df3, Addbot, Power.corrupts, Latinist~enwiki, DOI bot, Tcncv, Dgroseth, OmniaMutantur, Ronhjones, Dranu, Download, Proxima Centauri, Subverted, Jellevc, Favonian,
LinkFA-Bot, Tvljohn, Rebelinside, AAFall, Unibond, Tide rolls, SDJ, Lightbot, Jan eissfeldt, Ben Ben, Luckas-bot, Cowperc, Yobot,
L4UR13, Ht686rg90, Freikorp, Eiger3970, KamikazeBot, Ningauble, Imnotdoingit, AnomieBOT, LlywelynII, Bosonic dressing, Forturas, Citation bot, Steven120965, SCIENCE4EV, Clark89, Xqbot, Ekwos, Falsodar, JimVC3, Wayne Roberson, Austin, Texas, Millahnna, Smk65536, The Land Surveyor, Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy), GrouchoBot, Riggedfallacy, Omnipaedista, Naftoligug, RibotBOT,
ProfGiles, Smallman12q, TSW94, FrescoBot, LucienBOT, Paine Ellsworth, Nujjer, MikeParniak, Snorklin, Pyroman2133, Meishern,
Citation bot 1, Anthony on Stilts, Symplectic Map, Pink Bull, 10metreh, Jonesey95, Kungfukats2, SpaceFlight89, Fantantric, Nerdi-

16

11

TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

ed, Mudguppy, Damnedfan1234, Wotnow, ItsZippy, Kdascheller, Styxnsoon, WikiTome, The Pink Oboe, Chriss.2, Mchcopl, Becritical,
Salvio giuliano, Tesseract2, Wfunction, EmausBot, Bua333, Jimmygu3, Hpvpp, Slightsmile, Pablodox, Solomonfromnland, Professionaleducator, Djfj, SunOfErat, Knight1993, A930913, SporkBot, Wikignome0530, AtomicEddy, OnePt618, Hiernonymous, Donner60, Abulhawa89, HandsomeFella, Teapeat, DASHBotAV, Support.and.Defend, Rememberway, ClueBot NG, Ptrb, ClaretAsh, Michaelmas1957,
Rverma1993, JimsMaher, Jesspiper, Albertttt, Braincricket, Thepigdog, Kevin Gorman, Helpful Pixie Bot, Tholme, HMSSolent, BG19bot,
Brentworks, Richard Tester, CitationCleanerBot, Harizotoh9, Rjcripe, MrBill3, FeralOink, Pikachu Bros., Rodaen, Ultimaterializer, Fosburyop, BattyBot, Giganticube, ChrisGualtieri, SD5bot, Isaidnoway, JYBot, Dexbot, Psr1995, Wenjanglau, Mogism, Cerabot~enwiki,
Czech is Cyrillized, The Quirky Kitty, EnamTTmane, Jochen Burghardt, 90b56587, Reatlas, BreakfastJr, Franois Robere, Harlem Baker
Hughes, Comp.arch, Lesser Cartographies, Ameshan, Yadsalohcin, JaconaFrere, Monkbot, Radath, SJ2010SJ2010, Dorgotron333, Vidauty, Bad perm, Barklestork, Ashenderickin, Hicham kotob, Loraof, Magicyle, May22freed, Fourpermutations, Alex e e alex, Elisionnovice, Nkkenbuer, KasparBot, Tejas Subramaniam, BachGirl89, Sean12712, Ephemerance, Srednuas Lenoroc, AuveBopSmoke and
Anonymous: 976

11.2

Images

File:Brain.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Nicolas_P._Rougier%27s_rendering_of_the_human_

brain.png License: GPL Contributors: http://www.loria.fr/~{}rougier Original artist: Nicolas Rougier
File:Commons-logo.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/Commons-logo.svg License: ? Contributors: ? Original
artist: ?
File:Edit-clear.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f2/Edit-clear.svg License: Public domain Contributors: The
Tango! Desktop Project. Original artist:
The people from the Tango! project. And according to the meta-data in the le, specically: Andreas Nilsson, and Jakub Steiner (although
minimally).
File:Folder_Hexagonal_Icon.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/48/Folder_Hexagonal_Icon.svg License: Cc-bysa-3.0 Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Heliocentric.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Heliocentric.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: rst upload to de:wikipedia 22:42, 5. Apr 2004 by de:UserRivi . . 570 x 480 (63.606 Byte) (Heliozentrisches Weltbild) Original
artist: Andreas Cellarius
File:Leprechaun_or_Clurichaun.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Leprechaun_or_Clurichaun.png
License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Logic_portal.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Logic_portal.svg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Watchduck (a.k.a. Tilman Piesk)
File:Nuvola_apps_kalzium.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Nuvola_apps_kalzium.svg License:
LGPL Contributors: Own work Original artist: David Vignoni, SVG version by Bobarino
File:Pluralitas.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Pluralitas.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
Own work (Original text: self-made) Original artist: Latinist
File:Portal-puzzle.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fd/Portal-puzzle.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ?
Original artist: ?
File:Wikiquote-logo.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Wikiquote-logo.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Wiktionary-logo-en.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Wiktionary-logo-en.svg License: Public
domain Contributors: Vector version of Image:Wiktionary-logo-en.png. Original artist: Vectorized by Fvasconcellos (talk contribs),
based on original logo tossed together by Brion Vibber

11.3

Content license

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0