David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Analysis 65 (287):205–210 (2005)
Among theories which ﬁt all of our data, we prefer the simpler over the more complex. Why? Surely not merely for practical convenience or aesthetic pleasure. But how could we be justiﬁed in this preference without knowing in advance that the world is more likely to be simple than complex? And isn’t this a rather extravagant a priori assumption to make? I want to suggest some steps we can take toward reducing this embarrassment, by showing that the assumption which supports favouring simplicity is far more modest than it ﬁrst seems
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Elliott Sober (1975). Simplicity. Clarendon Press.
Arnold Zellner, Hugo A. Keuzenkamp & Michael McAleer (eds.) (2001). Simplicity, Inference and Modeling: Keeping It Sophisticatedly Simple. Cambridge University Press.
Nicholas Maxwell, Simplicity. PhilSci Archive.
Aaron Sloman, Simplicity and Ontologies The Trade-Off Between Simplicity of Theories and Sophistication of Ontologies.
Jerome M. Segal (1999). Graceful Simplicity: Toward a Philosophy and Politics of Simple Living. H. Holt & Co..
Frederick Schauer (1997). Does Simplicity Bring Liberty? Critical Review 11 (3):393-406.
Peter Turney (1989). The Architecture of Complexity: A New Blueprint. Synthese 79 (3):515 - 542.
Stewart Duncan (2009). Hume and a Worry About Simplicity. History of Philosophy Quarterly 26 (2):139-157.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads82 ( #12,332 of 1,004,644 )
Recent downloads (6 months)9 ( #11,283 of 1,004,644 )
How can I increase my downloads?