In a msg to Paul Andinach on , Ivy Iverson of 1:154/170 writes:
 PA> Given a choice between two hypotheses that explain the evidence
 PA> equally well, go with the hypothesis that's simpler.
 II>  
 II> And when I say that Occam's razor is rusty, I mean that:
 II>  
 II> A) it is often used to "taylor" the facts/evidence to coincide with
 II>    preconcieved beliefs, and/or
Specifically how?
 II> B) The simplest explaination is NOT always the correct one!  Just
 II>    because the Moon APPEARS to be a flat disk, to someone who knows
 II>    absoloutely nothing about the solar system and orbital mechanics,
 II>    Occam's razor suggests that the Moon IS flat.
You're forgetting the part about explaining the evidence.  There is more 
evidence dealing with the moon than just "It looks like a circle from here."  
But, yes, you're right, the simplest explanation is NOT always the correct 
one. That's why you keep looking for evidence.  But when you are faced with 
two possible explanations for the same set of information, your best bet is 
to go with the simpler one.  Nobody is saying that Occam's Razor PROVES 
anything, because it doesn't (the movie _Contact_, for example, screwed up on 
this point at the end).  
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
---------------