Dr.A writes:
To take an example I often use, suppose I leave my dog alone with a slice of pizza, and when I come back the pizza is gone. I might conjecture that the pizza was stolen by pizza-stealing fairies, but this involves introducing an entity otherwise unevidenced, whereas I already possess evidence for the existence of a pizza-eating dog. There is no need to add a hypothetical entity when I have a real one to hand.
Sure, like I said, Occam (or, some would say, common sense) will help you prioritise hypotheses and it would correctly claim that the dog is by far the simpest and most likely solution. But it proves nothing.
To prove Occam's preferrence that 'it was the dog wot done done it, yer honour', science would examine the contents of its stomach to find the evidence.
Edited by Tangle, : Bloody quote...
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android