Current Events > Where is my logic wrong with Occam's Razor and science?

(+) Yeah! (+)

A bit of a philosophy/science question I was considering. Are Occam's Razor and science at odds with each other? Consider that before scientific investigation, things had simple basic explanations, but with further examination, the items within the universe grew infinitely more complex.
---

No coz Occam's Razor says to pick the simplest explanation consistent with all the evidence.

The real breakthrough in science, imo, isn't that we suddenly learned logic. It's that we realized the value of collecting more evidence. So as evidence grows, explanations have to get more complicated
---

Pre-scientific method "simple" answers weren't simple though, they were ignorant and usually based on a humongous assumption (like God did it), which is inherently more complex when you boil it down than reality.

---

Occams Razor is less about favoring the simplest answer, but rather the answer that makes the fewest assumptions (I.e. notions that are not necessarily founded). The more assumptions your claim is based on, the shakier it is. Would you be more inclined to believe that things fall at a rate of 9.81 m/s^2 because of gravity, or because every object is pulled toward another by invisible, intangible, tiny pixies using their magic at exactly that rate, as per the regulations of the Tiny Pixie Object Moving Council?
---