Useful maxims
There are many short principles that help clarify reasoning, decision-making, or analysis. I will feature some of them in a series of posts, expositing a few of them each time.
1. The most famous is probably Occam’s Razor.
Named after William of Ockham, it tells us that, when faced with competing theories that might explain something, to select the one with the fewest or simplest assumptions. It is used in science and in daily life to avoid unnecessary assumptions and to narrow down possibilities.
It is a working rule of thumb, not a proof. The simplest explanation is not always the correct one, but in science simplicity is sought as well as predictability. The Ptolemaic solar system initially generated better predictions than the Copernican model, but the latter was simpler, avoiding the need to construct imagined cycles within cycles.
Occam’s Razor is sometimes expressed as “Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity,” and is useful in avoiding imagined complications when a simple explanation will suffice.
2. Chesterton’s Fence suggest that we go cautiously.
Devised by G K Chesterton, it says that if we see a fence that seems unnecessary, then before we pull it down, we should find out why it was put there in the first place. It might be completely useless, but let’s make sure it is before we pull it down.
It is a metaphor urging against the rash abandonment of laws, customs or traditions until we have first divined what purpose they originally served. It may be that in exploring the reason they arose we could discover the value they still have. There may have been valid, unseen reasons for establishing the rule or structure.
Its use is commonly found in social and political discussions about modernizing or updating aspects of law and government. There are occasions when that needs to be done, but the axiom tells us to look cautiously at why the status quo is what it is before abolishing it and risking the unintended adverse consequences it might have prevented.
3. Buridan’s Ass tells a cautionary tale.
The 14th-century French philosopher Jean Buridan dealt with choosing between two options that are identical. He said, “Should two courses be judged equal, then the will cannot break the deadlock.” This was later satirized by the example of a tethered ass placed equidistantly from two equally attractive piles of food. Unable to decide between them, the poor animal remains where it is and starves to death.
The parable illustrates a dilemma free will. Given different choices that produce equally attractive outcomes, do we have a reason to choose one over the other, or are we stuck in a paralysis of indecision? Commentators claim that in the real world no two choices are identical, and that there are always biases, albeit tiny and unconscious, that lead us to make a preference.
And even if there were no such biases, the parable contains an assumption that one choice precludes the other. This is not always so. A real ass would probably take one pile first, then amble over to eat the other. And if a human couldn’t decide which choice to make, they could toss a coin. Since the outcomes were deemed equally attractive, they wouldn’t lose by doing do.
Madsen Pirie