What two difficulties arise in taking simplicity straightforwardly as a guide in choosing one hypothesis over another? Solution Answer: Theories with the fewest assumptions are often preferred to those positing more, a heuristic often called “Occam’s razor.” This kind of argument has been used on both sides of the creationism vs. evolution debate. Simple theories have many advantages: they are often falsifiable or motivate various predictions, and can be easily communicated as well as widely understood. But there are numerous reasons to suspect that this simple “theory of theories” is itself fundamentally misguided. Nowhere is this more apparent than in physics, the science attempting to uncover the fundamental laws giving rise to reality. The history of physics is like a trip down the rabbit hole: the elegance and simplicity of Newtonian physics has been incrementally replaced by more and more complex theories. And it is in the life sciences where Occam’s razor cuts most sharply in the wrong direction and posing difficulties in taking simplicity straightforwardly 1) First, life itself is a fascinating example of nature’s penchant for complexity. Parsimony can apply anywhere but not here. 2) Second, evolution doesn’t design organisms as an engineer might, instead, organisms carry their evolutionary history along with them, advantages and disadvantages alike (appendix is the price an individual pays for all his inherited immunity to disease). Thus, life appears to result from a cascading complexifying process, an understanding of organisms at the macroscale will be anything but simple. 3) Third, we know that the even the simplest rules of life can give rise to intractable complexity. Unless an individual is a biophysicist, the mechanisms at the preferred level of analysis are likely to be incredibly heterogenous and complex, even at the simplest..

1. What two difficulties arise in taking simplicity straightforwardly as a guide in choosing one
hypothesis over another?
Solution
Answer:
Theories with the fewest assumptions are often preferred to those positing more, a heuristic often
called “Occam’s razor.” This kind of argument has been used on both sides of the creationism vs.
evolution debate.
Simple theories have many advantages: they are often falsifiable or motivate various predictions,
and can be easily communicated as well as widely understood.
But there are numerous reasons to suspect that this simple “theory of theories” is itself
fundamentally misguided. Nowhere is this more apparent than in physics, the science attempting
to uncover the fundamental laws giving rise to reality. The history of physics is like a trip down
the rabbit hole: the elegance and simplicity of Newtonian physics has been incrementally
replaced by more and more complex theories.
And it is in the life sciences where Occam’s razor cuts most sharply in the wrong direction and
posing difficulties in taking simplicity straightforwardly
1) First, life itself is a fascinating example of nature’s penchant for complexity. Parsimony can
apply anywhere but not here.
2) Second, evolution doesn’t design organisms as an engineer might, instead, organisms carry
their evolutionary history along with them, advantages and disadvantages alike (appendix is the
price an individual pays for all his inherited immunity to disease). Thus, life appears to result
from a cascading complexifying process, an understanding of organisms at the macroscale will
be anything but simple.
3) Third, we know that the even the simplest rules of life can give rise to intractable complexity.
Unless an individual is a biophysicist, the mechanisms at the preferred level of analysis are likely
to be incredibly heterogenous and complex, even at the simplest.