Occams razor

For the aerial theatre company, see Ockhams Razor The- a simpler hypothesis.[lower-alpha 2]
atre Company.
Solomonos theory of inductive inference is a mathOccams razor (also written as Ockhams razor and
ematically 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 which perfectly describe
previous observations.
In science, Occams razor is used as a heuristic (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, there is always
an innite number of possible and more complex alternatives, because one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypothesis to prevent them from beThe motions of the sun, moon and other solar system planets can ing falsied; therefore, simpler theories are preferable to
be calculated using a geocentric model (the earth is at the center) more complex ones because they are better testable and
or using a heliocentric model (the sun is at the center). Both work, falsiable.[1][10][11]
but the geocentric system requires many more assumptions than
the heliocentric system, which has only seven. This was pointed
out in a preface to Copernicus' rst edition of De revolutionibus
orbium coelestium.

1 History

in Latin lex parsimoniae) 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, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, butin the absence
of certaintythe 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 razor"; its 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 ap- 1.1 Formulations before Ockham
plies in a particular context, that is: philosophers who
argue in opposition to metaphysical theories that involve The origins of what has come to be known as Occams
allegedly superuous ontological apparatus.[lower-alpha 1] Razor are traceable to the works of earlier philosophers
Baker then notices that principles, including Occams ra- such as John Duns Scotus (12651308), Robert Groszor, are often expressed in a way that is not clear regard- seteste (1175-1253), Maimonides (Moses ben-Maimon,
ing which facet of simplicity parsimony or elegance 11381204), and even Aristotle (384322 BC).[14][15]
is being referred to, and that in a hypothetical formula- Aristotle writes in his Posterior Analytics, we may astion the facets of simplicity may work in dierent direc- sume the superiority ceteris paribus [all things being
tions: a simpler description may refer to a more complex equal] of the demonstration which derives from fewer
hypothesis, and a more complex description may refer to postulates or hypotheses.[16] Ptolemy (c. AD 90 c. AD
1

HISTORY

ilar conclusions.
While it has been claimed that Ockhams razor is not
found in any of his writings,[20] one can cite statements
such as Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate
[Plurality must never be posited without necessity], which
occurs in his theological work on the 'Sentences of Peter Lombard' (Quaestiones et decisiones in quattuor libros
Part of a page from Duns Scotus book Ordinatio: "Pluralitas non Sententiarum Petri Lombardi (ed. Lugd., 1495), i, dist.
est ponenda sine necessitate", i.e., Plurality is not to be posited 27, qu. 2, K).
without necessity

168) stated, We consider it a good principle to explain

the phenomena by the simplest hypothesis possible.[17]
Phrases such as It is vain to do with more what can be
done with fewer and A plurality is not to be posited
without necessity were commonplace in 13th-century
scholastic writing.[17] Robert Grosseteste, in Commentary on [Aristotles] the Posterior Analytics Books (Commentarius in Posteriorum Analyticorum Libros) (c. 1217
1220), declares: That is better and more valuable which
requires fewer, other circumstances being equal... For
if one thing were demonstrated from many and another
thing from fewer equally known premises, clearly that
is better which is from fewer because it makes us know
quickly, just as a universal demonstration is better than
particular because it produces knowledge from fewer
premises. Similarly in natural science, in moral science, 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
superuous to suppose that what can be accounted for by
a few principles has been produced by many. Aquinas
uses this principle to construct an objection to Gods existence, an objection that he in turn answers and refutes
generally (cf. quinque viae), and specically, through
an argument based on causality.[19] Hence, Aquinas acknowledges the principle that today is known as Occams
Razor, but prefers causal explanations to other simple explanations (cf. also Correlation does not imply causation).

Nevertheless, the precise words sometimes attributed

to Ockham, entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem (entities must not be multiplied beyond
necessity),[21] are absent in his extant works;[22] this particular phrasing owes more to John Punch,[23] who described the principle as a common axiom (axioma vulgare) of the Scholastics.[13] Indeed, Ockhams contribution seems to be to restrict the operation of this principle
in matters pertaining to miracles and Gods power: so, in
the Eucharist, a plurality of miracles is possible, simply
because it pleases God.[17]
This principle is sometimes phrased as pluralitas non est
ponenda sine necessitate (plurality should not be posited
without necessity).[24] In his Summa Totius Logicae, i.
12, Ockham cites the principle of economy, Frustra t
per plura quod potest eri per pauciora [It is futile to do
with more things that which can be done with fewer].
(Thorburn, 1918, pp. 3523; Kneale and Kneale, 1962,
p. 243.)

1.3 Later formulations

To quote Isaac Newton, We are to admit no more causes
of natural things than such as are both true and sucient
to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural eects we must, so far as possible, assign the same
causes.[25][26]

Bertrand Russell oers a particular version of Occams

The Indian Hindu philosopher Madhva in verse 400 of his Razor: Whenever possible, substitute constructions out
Vishnu-Tattva-Nirnaya says: "dvidhAkalpane kalpanA- of known entities for inferences to unknown entities.[27]
gauravamiti" (To make two suppositions when one is
Around 1960, Ray Solomono founded the theory of
enough is to err by way of excessive supposition).
universal inductive inference, the theory of prediction based on observations; for example, predicting the
next symbol based upon a given series of symbols.
1.2 Ockham
The only assumption is that the environment follows
some unknown but computable probability distribution.
William of Ockham (c. 12871347) was an English This theory is a mathematical formalization of Occams
Franciscan friar and theologian, an inuential medieval Razor.[2][3][4][5][28]
philosopher and a nominalist. His popular fame as a great
to Occams Razor is
logician rests chiey on the maxim attributed to him and Another technical approach
[29]
ontological
parsimony.
known as Ockhams razor. The term razor refers to distinguishing between two hypotheses either by shaving The widespread laypersons formulation that the simaway unnecessary assumptions or cutting apart two sim- plest explanation is usually the correct one is akin.

2.2

Empirical

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 Possible explanations can become needlessly complex. It is coherent, for instance, to add the involvement of leprechauns to
employ two instruments [if] one suces.[30]
any explanation, but Occams Razor would prevent such additions unless they were necessary.

2.2

Empirical

Occams Razor has gained strong empirical support as far

as helping to converge on better theories (see Applications section below for some examples).
ing explanations, this is not the caseat least not genIn the related concept of overtting, excessively complex erally. Some increases in complexity are sometimes necmodels are aected by statistical noise (a problem also essary. So there remains a justied general bias toward
known as the bias-variance trade-o), whereas simpler the simpler of two competing explanations. To undermodels may capture the underlying structure better and stand why, consider that for each accepted explanation
may thus have better predictive performance. It is, how- of a phenomenon, there is always an innite number of
ever, often dicult to deduce which part of the data is possible, more complex, and ultimately incorrect, alternoise (cf. model selection, test set, minimum description natives. This is so because one can always burden failing
explanations with ad hoc hypothesis. Ad hoc hypotheses
length, Bayesian inference, etc.).
are justications that prevent theories from being falsied. Even other empirical criteria, such as consilience,
can never truly eliminate such explanations as competi2.2.1 Testing the razor
tion. Each true explanation, then, may have had many
The razors statement that other things being equal, sim- alternatives that were simpler and false, but also an inpler explanations are generally better than more complex nite number of alternatives that were more complex and
ones is amenable to empirical testing. Another interpre- false. But if an alternate ad hoc hypothesis were indeed
tation of the razors statement would be that simpler hy- justiable, its implicit conclusions would be empirically
potheses (not conclusions, i.e. explanations) are generally veriable. On a commonly accepted repeatability prinbetter than the complex ones. The procedure to test the ciple, these alternate theories have never been observed
former interpretation would compare the track records of and continue to escape observation. In addition, we do
simple and comparatively complex explanations. If you not say an explanation is true if it has not withstood this
accept the rst interpretation, the validity of Occams Ra- principle.
zor as a tool would then have to be rejected if the more Put another way, any new, and even more complex, thecomplex explanations were more often correct than the ory can still possibly be true. For example: If an indiless complex ones (while the converse would lend sup- vidual makes supernatural claims that Leprechauns were
port to its use). If the latter interpretation is accepted, responsible for breaking a vase, the simpler explanation
the validity of Occams Razor as a tool could possibly be would be that he is mistaken, but ongoing ad hoc justiaccepted if the simpler hypotheses led to correct conclu- cations (e.g. and thats not me on the lm; they tampered
sions more often than not.
with that, too) successfully prevent outright falsication.
In the history of competing hypotheses, the simpler hy- This endless supply of elaborate competing explanations,
potheses have led to mathematically rigorous and em- called saving hypotheses, cannot be ruled outbut by uspirically veriable theories. In the history of compet- ing Occams Razor.[31][32][33]

2.3

2 JUSTIFICATIONS

Practical considerations and pragma- ries which would have accommodated a wide range of
other possible results. This, again, reects the mathemattism

See also: pragmatism and problem of induction

ical relationship between key concepts in Bayesian inference (namely marginal probability, conditional probability, and posterior probability).

The common form of the razor, used to distinguish between equally explanatory hypotheses, may be supported 2.5 Other philosophers
by the practical fact that simpler theories are easier to understand.
2.5.1 Karl Popper
Some argue that Occams Razor is not an inferencedriven model, but a heuristic maxim for choosing among Karl Popper argues that a preference for simple theories need not appeal to practical or aesthetic considerother models and instead underlies induction.
ations. Our preference for simplicity may be justied
Alternatively, if we want to have reasonable discussion
by its falsiability criterion: We prefer simpler theories
we may be practically forced to accept Occams Razor
to more complex ones because their empirical content
in the same way we are simply forced to accept the laws
is greater; and because they are better testable (Popper
of thought and inductive reasoning (given the problem of
1992). The idea here is that a simple theory applies to
induction). Philosopher Elliott Sober states that not even
more cases than a more complex one, and is thus more
reason itself can be justied on any reasonable grounds,
easily falsiable. This is again comparing a simple theand that we must start with rst principles of some kind
ory to a more complex theory where both explain the data
(otherwise an innite regress occurs).
equally well.
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 2.5.2 Elliott Sober
Occams Razor is invalid as a premise helping to regulate theories, putting this doubt into practice would mean The philosopher of science Elliott Sober once argued
doubting whether every step forward will result in lo- along the same lines as Popper, tying simplicity with incomotion or a nuclear explosion. In other words still: formativeness": The simplest theory is the more informative one, in the sense that less information is required
Whats the alternative?"
in order to answer ones questions.[36] He has since rejected this account of simplicity, purportedly because it
fails to provide an epistemic justication for simplicity.
2.4 Mathematical
He now believes that simplicity considerations (and conOne justication of Occams Razor is a direct result of siderations of parsimony in particular) do not count unbasic probability theory. By denition, all assumptions less they reect something more fundamental. Philosointroduce possibilities for error; if an assumption does phers, he suggests, may have made the error of hypostanot improve the accuracy of a theory, its only eect is to tizing simplicity (i.e. endowed it with a sui generis exincrease the probability that the overall theory is wrong. istence), when it has meaning only when embedded in a
specic context (Sober 1992). If we fail to justify simThere have also been other attempts to derive Occams plicity considerations on the basis of the context in which
Razor from probability theory, including notable atwe make use of them, we may have no non-circular justempts made by Harold Jereys and E. T. Jaynes. The tication: just as the question 'why be rational?' may
probabilistic (Bayesian) basis for Occams Razor is elabhave no non-circular answer, the same may be true of the
orated by David J. C. MacKay in chapter 28 of his question 'why should simplicity be considered in evaluatbook Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algoing the plausibility of hypotheses?'".[37]
rithms,[34] where he emphasises that a prior bias in favour
of simpler models is not required.
William H. Jeerys (no relation to Harold Jereys) and 2.5.3 Richard Swinburne
James O. Berger (1991) generalize and quantify the original formulations assumptions concept as the degree Richard Swinburne argues for simplicity on logical
to which a proposition is unnecessarily accommodating grounds:
to possible observable data.[35] They state a hypothesis with fewer adjustable parameters will automatically
... the simplest hypothesis proposed as
have an enhanced posterior probability, due to the fact
an explanation of phenomena is more likely
that the predictions it makes are sharp.[35] The model
to be the true one than is any other available
they propose balances the precision of a theorys prehypothesis, that its predictions are more likely
dictions against their sharpness; theories which sharply
to be true than those of any other available
made their correct predictions are preferred over theohypothesis, and that it is an ultimate a priori

3.1

Science and the scientic method

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 by which to settle 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:

5
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,

3.328 If a sign is not necessary then it is meaning- metaphysical or heuristic preference, not an irrefutable
less. That is the meaning of Occams Razor.
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
(If everything in the symbolism works as
for existing data. However, science has shown repeatthough a sign had meaning, then it has meanedly that future data often support more complex theoing.)
ries than do existing data. Science prefers the simplest
4.04 In the proposition there must be exactly as explanation that is consistent with the data available at
many things distinguishable as there are in the state a given time, but the simplest explanation may be ruled
[8][10]
That is, science is
of aairs which it represents. They must both pos- out as new data become available.
open
to
the
possibility
that
future
experiments
might supsess the same logical (mathematical) multiplicity
port
more
complex
theories
than
demanded
by current
(cf. Hertzs Mechanics, on Dynamic Models).
data and is more interested in designing experiments to
5.47321 Occams Razor is, of course, not an arbi- discriminate between competing theories than favoring
trary rule nor one justied by its practical success. one theory over another based merely on philosophical
It simply says that unnecessary elements in a sym- principles.[1][10][11]
bolism mean nothing. Signs which serve one purWhen 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 backpurpose are logically meaningless.
ground assumptions are required for parsimony to connect with plausibility in a particular research problem.
and on the related concept of simplicity":
The reasonableness of parsimony in one research context
may have nothing to do with its reasonableness in another.
6.363 The procedure of induction consists in accept- It is a mistake to think that there is a single global princiing as true the simplest law that can be reconciled ple that spans diverse subject matter.[11]
with our experiences.
It has been suggested that Occams Razor is a widely
accepted example of extraevidential consideration, even
though it is entirely a metaphysical assumption. There is
3 Applications
little empirical evidence that the world is actually simple
or that simple accounts are more likely to be true than
3.1 Science and the scientic method
complex ones.[46]
In science, Occams Razor is used as a heuristic (rule
of thumb) to guide scientists in developing theoretical models rather than as 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

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

cutting out crazy, complicated constructions and assuring
that hypotheses are grounded in the science of the day,
thus yielding normal science: models of explanation
and prediction. There are, however, notable exceptions
where Occams Razor turns a conservative scientist into

6
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]

3 APPLICATIONS

ample, 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 quanAppeals to simplicity were used to argue against the phe- tum mechanics. Science often does not demand arbitramodels that make the
nomena of meteorites, ball lightning, continental drift, tion or selection criteria between
[10]
same
testable
predictions.
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 which 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 the atomic theory of John Dalton C. Williams in his book Adaptation and Natural Selection
until the reality of atoms was more evident in Brownian (1966) argues that the best way to explain altruism among
motion, as shown by Albert Einstein.[47] In the same way, animals is based on low level (i.e. individual) selection as
postulating the aether is more complex than transmis- opposed to high level group selection. Altruism is dened
sion of light through a vacuum. At the time, however, by some evolutionary biologists (e.g. R. Alexander, 1987;
all known waves propagated through a physical medium, W. D. Hamilton, 1964) as behavior that is benecial to
and it seemed simpler to postulate the existence of a others (or to the group) at a cost to the individual, and
medium than to theorize about wave propagation with- many posit individual selection as the mechanism which
out a medium. Likewise, Newtons idea of light particles explains altruism solely in terms of the behaviors of inseemed simpler than Christiaan Huygenss idea of waves, dividual organisms acting in their own self-interest (or in
so many favored it. In this case, as it turned out, neither the interest of their genes, via kin selection). Williams
the wavenor the particleexplanation alone suces, was arguing against the perspective of others who propose selection at the level of the group as an evolutionary
as light behaves like waves and like particles.
mechanism that selects for altruistic traits (e.g. D. S. WilThree axioms presupposed by the scientic method are
son & E. O. Wilson, 2007). The basis for Williams conrealism (the existence of objective reality), the existence
tention is that of the two, individual selection is the more
of natural laws, and the constancy of natural law. Rather
parsimonious theory. In doing so he is invoking a variant
than depend on provability of these axioms, science deof Occams Razor known as Lloyd Morgans Canon: In
pends on the fact that they have not been objectively falno case is an animal activity to be interpreted in terms
sied. Occams Razor and parsimony support, but do not
of higher psychological processes, if it can be fairly inprove, these axioms of science. The general principle of
terpreted in terms of processes which stand lower in the
science is that theories (or models) of natural law must
scale of psychological evolution and development (Morbe consistent with repeatable experimental observations.
gan 1903).
This ultimate arbiter (selection criterion) rests upon the
However, more recent biological analyses, such as
axioms mentioned above.[10]
Richard Dawkins' The Selsh Gene, have contended that
There are examples where Occams Razor would have faOccams view is not the simplest and most basic. Dawkins
vored the wrong theory given the available data. Simargues the way evolution works is that the genes propplicity principles are useful philosophical preferences for
agated in most copies will end up determining the dechoosing a more likely theory from among several possivelopment of that particular species, i.e., natural selecbilities that are all consistent with available data. A sintion turns out to select specic genes, and this is really
gle instance of Occams Razor favoring a wrong theory
the fundamental underlying principle, that automatically
[10]
Michael Lee
falsies the razor as a general principle.
gives individual and group selection as emergent features
[48]
and others provide cases in which a parsimonious apof evolution.
proach does not guarantee a correct conclusion and, if
based on incorrect working hypotheses or interpretations Zoology provides an example. Muskoxen, when threatof incomplete data, may even strongly support a false ened by wolves, will form a circle with the males on the
conclusion. Lee states, When parsimony ceases to be outside and the females and young on the inside. This is
a guideline and is instead elevated to an ex cathedra pro- an example of a behavior by the males that seems to be
altruistic. The behavior is disadvantageous to them indinouncement, parsimony analysis ceases to be science.
vidually but benecial to the group as a whole and was
If multiple models of natural law make exactly the same
thus seen by some to support the group selection theory.
testable predictions, they are equivalent and there is no
need for parsimony to choose a preferred one. For ex- However, a much better explanation immediately oers
itself once one considers that natural selection works on

3.3

Medicine

genes. If the male musk ox runs o, leaving his ospring

to the wolves, his genes will not be propagated. If however he takes up the ght his genes will live on in his ospring. And 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 will consistently produce 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 research.[50]

7
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 will 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 having a single rarer disease which
explains their 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 razor
and 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 to be 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
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

3 APPLICATIONS

from pulmonary edema, they might decide to test for the Rather than argue for the necessity of God, some theists
relatively rare condition of selenium poisoning.
consider their belief to be based on grounds independent
of, or prior to, reason, making Occams Razor irrelevant.
This was the stance of Sren Kierkegaard, who viewed
3.4 Religion
belief in God as a leap of faith which sometimes directly
opposed reason.[54] This is also the same basic view of
Main article: Existence of God
Clarkian Presuppositional apologetics, with the exception
that Clark never thought the leap of faith was contrary to
In the philosophy of religion, Occams Razor is some- reason. (See also: Fideism).
times 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]

There are various arguments in favour of God which establish God as a useful or even necessary assumption.
Contrastinghly, atheists hold rmly to the belief that assuming the existence of God would introduce 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
against materialism, stating that matter was not required
by his metaphysic and was thus eliminable. One potential
problem with this belief is that its possible, given BerkeSt. Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa Theologica, uses a leys position, to nd solipsism itself more in line with the
formulation of Occams Razor to construct an objection razor than a God-mediated world beyond a single thinker.
to the idea that God exists, which he refutes directly with
In his article Sensations and Brain Processes (1959),
a counterargument:[53]
J. J. C. Smart invoked Occams Razor with the aim to
justify his preference of the mind-brain identity theory
Further, it is superuous to suppose that
over spirit-body dualism. Dualists state that there are two
what can be accounted for by a few princikinds of substances in the universe: physical (including
ples has been produced by many. But it seems
the body) and spiritual, which is non-physical. In conthat everything we see in the world can be actrast, identity theorists state that everything is physical,
counted for by other principles, supposing God
including consciousness, and that there is nothing nondid not exist. For all natural things can be rephysical. Despite the fact that it is impossible to apduced to one principle which is nature; and all
preciate the spiritual when limiting oneself to the physvoluntary things can be reduced to one princiical, Smart maintained that identity theory explains all
ple which is human reason, or will. Therefore
phenomena by assuming only a physical reality. Subthere is no need to suppose Gods existence.
sequently, Smart has been severely criticized for his
(mis)use of Occams Razor and ultimately retracted his
In turn, Aquinas answers this with the quinque viae, and advocacy of it in this context. Paul Churchland (1984)
addresses the particular objection above with the follow- states that by itself Occams Razor is inconclusive regarding answer:
ing duality. In a similar way, Dale Jacquette (1994) stated
that Occams Razor has been used in attempts to justify eliminativism and reductionism in the philosophy of
Since nature works for a determinate end
mind. Eliminativism is the thesis that the ontology of folk
under the direction of a higher agent, whatever
psychology including such entities as pain, joy, deis done by nature must needs be traced back
sire, fear, etc., are eliminable in favor of an ontology
to God, as to its rst cause. So also whatever
of a completed neuroscience.
is done voluntarily must also be traced back
to some higher cause other than human reason
or will, since these can change or fail; for all
things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and
self-necessary rst principle, as was shown in
the body of the Article.

3.5 Penal ethics

In penal theory and the philosophy of punishment, parsimony refers specically to taking care in the distribution

9
of punishment in order to avoid excessive punishment. In
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
unjust. The concept is related but not identical to the legal
concept of proportionality. Parsimony is a key consideration of the modern restorative justice, and is a component
of utilitarian approaches to punishment, as well as the
prison abolition movement. Bentham believed that true
parsimony would require punishment to be individualised
to take account of the sensibility of the individualan individual more sensitive to punishment should be given a
proportionately lesser one, since otherwise needless pain
would be inicted. Later utilitarian writers have tended to
abandon this idea, in large part due to the impracticality
of determining each alleged criminals relative sensitivity
to specic punishments.[57]

This has led to two opposing views of the objectivity of

Occams Razor.

The statistical view leads to a more rigorous formulation

of the razor than that which came of previous philosophical discussions. In particular, it shows that simplicity
must rst be dened in some way before the razor may be
used, and that this denition will always be subjective.
For example, in the Kolmogorov-Chaitin 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 could always choose a Turing machine with
a simple operation that happened to construct ones entire theory and would hence score highly under the razor.

4 Controversial aspects of the razor

3.6.1 Objective razor

The minimum instruction set of a universal Turing machine requires approximately the same length description across dierent formulations, and is small compared
to the Kolmogorov complexity of most practical theories. Marcus Hutter has used this consistency to dene
a natural Turing machine of small size as the proper
basis for excluding arbitrarily complex instruction sets in
the formulation of razors.[59] Describing the program for
the universal program as the hypothesis, and the representation of the evidence as program data, it has been
formally proven under ZermeloFraenkel set theory that
the sum of the log universal probability of the model
plus the log of the probability of the data given the model
should be minimized.[60] Interpreting this as minimising
3.6 Probability theory and statistics
the total length of a two-part message encoding model
followed by data given model gives us the minimum mesMarcus Hutters universal articial intelligence builds sage length (MML) principle.[61][62]
upon Solomonos mathematical formalization of the raOne possible conclusion from mixing the concepts of
zor to calculate the expected value of an action.
Kolmogorov complexity and Occams Razor is that an
There are various papers in scholarly journals deriving ideal data compressor would also be a scientic explaformal versions of Occams Razor from probability the- nation/formulation generator. Some attempts have been
ory, applying it in statistical inference, and using it to made to re-derive known laws from considerations of
come up with criteria for penalizing complexity in statisti- simplicity or compressibility.[63][64]
cal inference. Recent papers have suggested a connection
between Occams Razor and Kolmogorov complexity.[58] According to Jrgen Schmidhuber, the appropriate mathematical theory of Occams Razor already exists, namely,
One of the problems with the original formulation of the Solomonos theory of optimal inductive inference[65]
razor is that it only applies to models with the same ex- and its extensions.[66] See discussions in David L. Dowes
planatory power (i.e. it only tells us to prefer the sim- Foreword re C. S. Wallace[67] for the subtle distinctions
plest of equally good models). A more general form of between the algorithmic probability work of Solomono
the razor can be derived from Bayesian model compari- and the MML work of Chris Wallace, and see Dowes
son, which is based on Bayes factors and can be used to MML, hybrid Bayesian network graphical models, stacompare models that don't t the data equally well. These tistical consistency, invariance and uniqueness[68] both
methods can sometimes optimally balance the complexity for such discussions and for (in section 4) discussions
and power of a model. Generally the exact Occam factor of MML and Occams Razor. For a specic examis intractable but approximations such as Akaike informa- ple of MML as Occams Razor in the problem of decition criterion, Bayesian information criterion, Variational sion tree induction, see Dowe and Needhams Message
Bayesian methods, false discovery rate, and Laplaces Length as an Eective Ockhams Razor in Decision Tree
method are used. Many articial intelligence researchers Induction.[69]
are now employing such techniques, for instance through
work on Occam Learning.

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 which are equally
well-supported by the evidence.[lower-alpha 4] Furthermore,
it may be used to prioritize empirical testing between
two equally plausible but unequally testable hypotheses;

10

6 SEE ALSO

thereby minimizing costs and wastes while increasing tions developed by Alfred Jarry (18731907). Perhaps
chances of falsication of the simpler-to-test hypothesis. the ultimate in anti-reductionism, "'Pataphysics seeks no
Another contentious aspect of the razor is that a theory less than to view each event in the universe as completely
can become more complex in terms of its structure (or unique, subject to no laws but its own. Variations on
syntax), while its ontology (or semantics) becomes sim- this theme were subsequently explored by the Argentine
pler, or vice versa.[lower-alpha 5] Quine, in a discussion on writer Jorge Luis Borges in his story/mock-essay "Tln,
denition, referred to these two perspectives as econ- Uqbar, Orbis Tertius". There is also Crabtrees Bludgeon,
omy of practical expression and economy in grammar which takes a cynical view that "[n]o set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human
and vocabulary, respectively.[71] The theory of relativity is often given as an example of the proliferation of intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however
complicated.
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 you really wanted to start
from a small number of entities, you could always consider the letters of the alphabet as the fundamental entities, since you could construct the whole of human knowledge out of them.

Anti-razors

6 See also
Algorithmic information theory
Chekhovs gun
Common sense
Cladistics
Eliminative materialism

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.

Falsiability
Greedy reductionism
Hanlons razor
Inductive probability
KISS principle
Metaphysical naturalism
Minimum description length
Minimum message length
Philosophy of science

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.[72]

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
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 solu-

Scientic method

Pseudoscience
Rationalism
Razor (philosophy)
Regress argument

Scientic reductionism
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.[70]
[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.[70]
[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"". 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. 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.
[31] Stanovich, Keith E. (2007). How to Think Straight About
Psychology. Boston: Pearson Education, pp. 1933.
[32] Carroll, Robert T. Ad hoc hypothesis. The Skeptics Dictionary. 22 Jun. 2008.
[33] Swinburne 1997 and Williams, Gareth T, 2008.
[34] Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms | url=http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/itprnn/
book.pdf
[35] Jeerys, William H.; Berger, James O. (1991).
Ockhams Razor and Bayesian Statistics (Preprint
available as Sharpening Occams Razor on a Bayesian
Strop)". 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 Pres. 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).
[40] de Maupertuis, PLM (1744). Mmoires de l'Acadmie
Royale (in French). p. 423..
[41] de Broglie, L (1925). Annales de Physique (in French)
(3/10). pp. 22128..
[42] RA Jackson, Mechanism: An Introduction to the Study of
Organic Reactions, Clarendon, Oxford, 1972.

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, Kenneth Belitz (Feb 4, 1994).
Verication, Validation, and Conrmation of Numerical Models in the Earth Sciences.
Science, 263
(5147):
641646.
Bibcode:1994Sci...263..641O.
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
[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.
[50] Crick 1988, p. 146.
[51] Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford. |chapter= ignored (help).
[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] Nannen, Volker. A short introduction to Model Selection, Kolmogorov Complexity and Minimum Description
Length. Retrieved 2010-07-03.
[59] Algorithmic Information Theory
[60] 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.
[61] Chris S. Wallace and David M. Boulton; Computer Journal, Volume 11, Issue 2, 1968 Page(s):185194, An information measure for classication.

[43] BK Carpenter, Determination of Organic Reaction Mechanism, Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1984.

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

Volume 42, Issue 4, Sep 1999 Page(s):270283, Minimum Message Length and Kolmogorov Complexity.

[44] Quote Investigator: Everything Should Be Made as Simple as Possible, But Not Simpler

[63] 'Occams razor as a formal basis for a physical theory' by

Andrei N. Soklakov

13

[64] 'Why Occams Razor' by Russell Standish

[65] Solomono, Ray (1964). A formal theory of inductive
inference. Part I.. Information and Control 7 (122):
1964.

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.

[66] 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.

[67] 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.

[68] 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
[69] 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
[70] Robert T. Carroll. Occams Razor. The Skeptics Dictionary Last updated 18 February 2012
[71] 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.
[72] 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

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.
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)",. 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.

Ariew, Roger (1976). Ockhams Razor: A Historical

and Philosophical Analysis of Ockhams Principle of
Parsimony. Champaign-Urbana, University of Illinois.

McDonald, William (2005). Sren Kierkegaard.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved
2006-04-14.

Charlesworth, M. J. (1956). Aristotles Razor. Philosophical Studies (Ireland) 6: 105112.

doi:10.5840/philstudies1956606.

Menger, Karl (1960). A Counterpart of Ockhams Razor in Pure and Applied Mathematics: Ontological Uses. Synthese 12 (4): 415.
doi:10.1007/BF00485426.

Churchland, Paul M. (1984). Matter and Consciousness. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. ISBN
0-262-53050-3. ISBN.
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.

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.

14

10

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.
Popper, Karl (1992). 7. Simplicity. The Logic of
Scientic Discovery (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
pp. 121132. ISBN 84-309-0711-4.
Rodrguez-Fernndez, J. L. (1999).
Ockhams Razor. Endeavour 23 (3): 121125.
doi:10.1016/S0160-9327(99)01199-0.
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. 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., ed. What is the
Problem of Simplicity?". 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.

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).

EXTERNAL LINKS

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
NIPS 2001 Workshop Foundations of Occams Razor and parsimony in learning
Simplicity at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Occams Razor at PlanetMath.org.
Disproof of parsimony as a general principle in science

15

11
11.1

Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

Text

Occams razor Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam{}s%20razor?oldid=647010810 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, Jagged 85, Tbonnie, Arny, DLH, Ordinant, Hoov, Sebesta, Bonanza Jellybean, ToddDeLuca, InGearX, BenAveling, Valley2city, Bluebot, Kurykh, Keegan, Baldghoti, Spilla,
Jprg1966, Thumperward, Jojo 1, CSWarren, Elyk53, Whispering, Pete4winds, Go for it!, 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, 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, The Wild Falcon, Orthologist, Butwhatdoiknow, Featherofmaat, Tomer T, Philip Trueman, Paulscho, Mtanti, Zamphuor, Paddling bear, Malinaccier, The Bone III, 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, SuperHamster, DragonBot, Kitsunegami, Excirial, Alexbot, Three-quarter-ten, Mate2code, 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, Enigmocracy, Addbot, Power.corrupts, Latinist, 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, Nerdied, Mudguppy, Damnedfan1234, Wotnow, ItsZippy, Kdascheller, Styxnsoon, WikiTome, The Pink Oboe, Chriss.2, Mchcopl, Becritical, Salvio giuliano, Tesseract2, Wfunction, EmausBot, Bua333, Jimmygu3, Hpvpp,

16

11

TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

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, Richard Tester, CitationCleanerBot, Rjcripe, MrBill3, FeralOink, Pikachu Bros., Rodaen, Ultimaterializer, BattyBot, Giganticube, ChrisGualtieri, SD5bot, Isaidnoway, JYBot, Dexbot, Psr1995, Wenjanglau, Mogism, Cerabot, 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, Magicyle, May22freed, Fourpermutations, Alex e e alex, Elisionnovice
and Anonymous: 954

11.2

Images

File:Brain.png Source: http://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: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/Commons-logo.svg License: ? Contributors: ? Original
artist: ?
File:Folder_Hexagonal_Icon.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/48/Folder_Hexagonal_Icon.svg License: Cc-bysa-3.0 Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Leprechaun_or_Clurichaun.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Leprechaun_or_Clurichaun.png
License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Logic_portal.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Logic_portal.svg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: <img alt='Mate2code.svg' src='//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/Mate2code.
svg/24px-Mate2code.svg.png' width='24' height='24' srcset='//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/Mate2code.svg/
36px-Mate2code.svg.png 1.5x, //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/Mate2code.svg/48px-Mate2code.svg.png 2x'
data-le-width='360' data-le-height='360' /> mate2code
File:Nuvola_apps_kalzium.svg Source: http://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: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Pluralitas.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
Transferred from en.wikipedia
Original artist: Latinist. Original uploader was Latinist at en.wikipedia
File:Portal-puzzle.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fd/Portal-puzzle.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ?
Original artist: ?
File:Sunlight_over_Earth_as_seen_by_STS-29_crew_-_GPN-2003-00025.jpg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/
commons/a/a4/Sunlight_over_Earth_as_seen_by_STS-29_crew_-_GPN-2003-00025.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Great
Images in NASA Description Original artist: NASA
File:Wikiquote-logo.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Wikiquote-logo.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Wiktionary-logo-en.svg Source: http://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