Skip to main content
Log in

Ockham Efficiency Theorem for Stochastic Empirical Methods

  • Published:
Journal of Philosophical Logic Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Ockham’s razor is the principle that, all other things being equal, scientists ought to prefer simpler theories. In recent years, philosophers have argued that simpler theories make better predictions, possess theoretical virtues like explanatory power, and have other pragmatic virtues like computational tractability. However, such arguments fail to explain how and why a preference for simplicity can help one find true theories in scientific inquiry, unless one already assumes that the truth is simple. One new solution to that problem is the Ockham efficiency theorem (Kelly 2002, Minds Mach 14:485–505, 2004, Philos Sci 74:561–573, 2007a, b, Theor Comp Sci 383:270–289, c, d; Kelly and Glymour 2004), which states that scientists who heed Ockham’s razor retract their opinions less often and sooner than do their non-Ockham competitors. The theorem neglects, however, to consider competitors following random (“mixed”) strategies and in many applications random strategies are known to achieve better worst-case loss than deterministic strategies. In this paper, we describe two ways to extend the result to a very general class of random, empirical strategies. The first extension concerns expected retractions, retraction times, and errors and the second extension concerns retractions in chance, times of retractions in chance, and chances of errors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Akaike, H. (1973). Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In Second international symposium on information theory (pp. 267–281).

  2. Baker, A. (2003). Quantitative parsimony and explanatory power. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 54, 245–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Baker, A. (2007). Occam’s razor in science: A case study from biogeography. Biology and Philosophy, 22, 193–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cartwirght, N. (1999). The dappled world: A study of the boundaries of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Garey, M., & Johnson, D. (1979). Computers and intractability: A guide to the theory of NP-completeness. New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Fishburn, P. (1972). On the foundations of game theory: The case of non-Archimedean utilities. International Journal of Game Theory, 2, 65–71.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Forster, M. (2001). The new science of simplicity. In A. Zellner, H. Keuzenkamp, & M. McAleer (Eds.), Simplicity, inference and modelling. (pp. 83–119). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Forster, M., & Sober, E. (1994). How to tell when simpler, more unified, or less ad hoc theories will provide more accurate predictions. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 45, 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Friedman, M. (1983). Foundations of spacetime theories: Relativistic physics and philosophy of science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gärdenfors, P. (1988). Knowledge in flux: Modeling the dynamics of epistemic states. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Harman, G., & Kulkarni, S. (2007). Reliable reasoning: Induction and statistical learning theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Heath, D., & Sudderth, W. (1972). On a theorem of de Finetti, oddsmaking and game theory. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 43(6), 2072–2077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hempel, C. (1966). Philosophy of natural science. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hitchcock, C., & Sober, E. (2004). Prediction versus accommodation and the risk of overfitting. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 55, 1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jeffreys H. (1961). Theory of probability. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kadane, J., Schervish, M., & Seidenfeld, T. (1999). Rethinking the foundations of statistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Karlin, S. (1950). Operator treatment of the minimax principle. In H. W. Kuhn, & A. W. Tucker (Eds.), Contributions to the theory of games. Annals of mathematics studies (Vol. 24, pp. 133–154). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Karlin, S. (1959). Mathematical methods and theory in games, programming and economics. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kelly, K. (2002). Efficient convergence implies Ockham’s razor. In Proceedings of the 2002 international workshop on computational models of scientif ic reasoning and applications, Las Vegas, USA, 24–27 June.

  20. Kelly, K. (2004). Justification as truth-finding efficiency: How Ockham’s razor works. Minds and Machines, 14, 485–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kelly, K. (2007). A new solution to the puzzle of simplicity. Philosophy of Science, 74, 561–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kelly, K. (2007). How simplicity helps you find the truth without pointing at it. In V. Harazinov, M. Friend, & N. Goethe (Eds.), Philosophy of mathematics and induction (pp. 321–360). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kelly, K. (2007). Ockham’s razor, empirical complexity, and truth-finding efficiency. Theoretical Computer Science, 383, 270–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kelly, K. (2007). Simplicity, truth, and the unending game of science. In S. Bold, B. Löwe, T. Räsch, & J. van Benthem (Eds.), Infinite games: Foundations of the formal sciences V (pp. 223–270). Roskilde: College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kelly, K. (2008). Ockham’s razor, truth, and information. In J. Van Benthem, & P. Adriaans (Eds.), Philosophy of information (pp. 321–360). Dordrecht: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Kelly, K. (2010). Simplicity, truth, and probability. In M. Forster, & P. Bandyopadhyay (Eds.), Handbook on the philosophy of statistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kelly, K., & Glymour, C. (2004). Why probability does not capture the logic of scientific justification. In C. Hitchcock (Ed.), Contemporary debates in the philosophy of science (pp. 94–114). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kelly, K., & Mayo-Wilson, C. (2008). Review of Gilbert Harman and Sanjeev Kulkarni. Reliable reasoning: Induction and statistical learning theory. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. http://ndpr.nd.edu/board.cfm. Accessed 18 March 2008.

  29. Kelly, K., & Mayo-Wilson, C. (2010). Ockham efficiency theorems for random empirical methods. Technical Report 186. Department of Philosophy, Carnegie Mellon University. http://www.hss.cmu.edu/philosophy/techreports/186_Mayo-Wilson.pdf.

  30. Kelly, K., & Mayo-Wilson, C. (2010). Causal conclusions that flip repeatedly and their justification. In: P. Grunwald & P. Spirtes (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence (pp. 277–285).

  31. Lehrer, K. (1990). Theory of knowledge. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Li, M., & Vitanyi, P. (2001). Simplicity, information, and Kolmogorov complexity. In A. Zellner, H. Keuzenkamp, & M. McAleer (Eds.), Simplicity, inference and modelling (pp. 83–119). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Mayo, D., & Spanos, A. (2006). Severe testing as a basic concept in a Neyman-Pearson philosophy of induction. British Journal for the Philsophy of Science, 57, 323–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mayo-Wilson, C. (2009). A game theoretic argument for Ockham’s razor. Master’s Thesis, Department of Philosophy, Carnegie Mellon University.

  36. Nolan, D. (1997). Quantitative parsimony. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 48, 329–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Reichenbach, H. (1938). Experience and prediction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  39. Rosenkrantz, R. (1983). Why glymour is a Bayesian. In Earman, J. (Ed.), Testing scientific theories. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Rosenkrantz, R. (1977). Inference, method, and decision: Towards a Bayesian philosophy of science. Boston: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Salmon, W. (1966). The foundations of scientific inference. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Savage, L. (1972). The foundations of statistics. New York: Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Schulte, O. (2001). Inferring conservation principles in particle physics: A case study in the problem of induction. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 51, 771–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Schulte, O., Luo, W., & Griner, R. (2007). Mind change optimal learning of Bayes net structure. In 20th annual conference on learning theory (COLT), San Diego.

  45. Sklar, L. (1977). Space, time, and spacetime. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Simon, H. (2001). Science seeks parsimony, not simplicity: searching for pattern in phenomena. In A. Zellner, H. Keuzenkamp, & M. McAleer (Eds.), Simplicity, inference and modelling (pp. 83–119). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Spirtes, P., Glymour, C., & Scheines, R. (2001). Causation, prediction, and search (2nd ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Vapnik, V. (1998). Statistical learning theory. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  49. van Fraassen, B. (1980). The scientific image. London: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  50. Yanoskaya, E.B. (1970). The solution of infinite zero-sum, two-person games with finitely additive strategies. Theory of Probability and Applications, 15, 153–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Wald, A. (1950). Statistical decision functions. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Conor Mayo-Wilson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kelly, K.T., Mayo-Wilson, C. Ockham Efficiency Theorem for Stochastic Empirical Methods. J Philos Logic 39, 679–712 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-010-9145-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-010-9145-3

Keywords

Navigation