In addition, I have found it useful to discuss parsimony in light of
competing theories, explanations, interpretations and stress that it is
not just the simple explanation, but the one preferred (a) fits with
established knowledge, and (b) makes the fewest assumptions. In other
words, I stress the principle of parsimony in relation to
efficiency/adequacy of explanatory accounts. I feel this is closer to
its historical origin and development as a scientific heuristic. This
helps avoid students and others using it as some absolute rule favoring
simplicity alone. I stress economy and efficiency of competing
interpretations or theories. Gary Peterson
Tom Allaway wrote:
>
> Just a couple of points:
>
> * Parsimony is certainly a principle rather than a law; it is a
> rule to guide our thinking. It is best called a heuristic.
> * Parsimony does not say everything is simple. It says that when
> we are choosing between two or more explanations, both of which
> fit the observed data, we should prefer the simpler one. This of
> course leaves open the possibility that additional data may force
> a reassessment.
> * Nature never promised to be simple... hence the parsimony
> heuristic may not always lead us to truth. But it's the best
> guide we have.
