‘Occam's Razor’ which suggests that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct. Conspiracy theorists hate Occam's razor.
–Superconductor, Reddit post on the topic of conspiracy (2014)

If you go on the web and do a joint search for the terms “conspiracy theory” and “occam’s Razor,” you’ll find quite a few statements similar to the above (which I selected on the basis of its pithiness).  Indeed, a number of self-described ‘skeptic’ sites and hard-copy publications depict the Razor as the garlic that wards off conspiracy vampires.   And, usually, they do so with a healthy dose of snark.  I have, for instance, a slick, glossy 2013 Media Source rag titled Conspiracies: Mysteries, Secrets & Lies, which leads off with the following observation:*

The theory of Ockham’s Razor suggests that the simplest most straightforward explanation to any issue is usually the best....Ockham’s Razor is the bane of conspiracy theorists everywhere.  Why keep it simple when a wacky, convoluted theory can be developed about almost anything.**

Put aside, for a moment, whether any of that is true.  The fact remains that anyone truly and exclusively believing in this interpretation of Occam’s Razor will lose his or her shirt within approximately one half hour after arriving in Manhattan.

Why?

Because within five minutes, he or she is bound to encounter either a three card Monte or shell game.   Both cons depend on sleight of hand.  They’re both designed so that the simplest, most straightforward answer is always wrong.

And here, we encounter the first problem with this version of Occam’s Razor.  It doesn’t take into account human guile.  Sure, scientists use it quite often to gain insight into natural phenomena.  But using the Razor to study rocks is quite different than using it to find anything meaningful within social interactions and individual motivation.  After all, the rock isn’t trying to deceive the scientist, or take her money.  It has neither will nor need.  It’s just a rock.  People, on the other hand, cheat, lie, steal, obfuscate, and deceive to augment or protect their social standing, privileges, power or wealth.  Doing these things successfully depends on the ability to complicate reality, knowing full well that fellow human beings will, if given the choice, usually opt for the simplest, most straightforward answer.

Here’s the second problem with this interpretation of the Razor:  it’s not what William of Occam actually said.  What he said, was this:

[1] Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitas [You must never assume plurality without necessity, and]

[2]  Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora [It’s folly to do with more when you are able to do with less].

In these two quotes, William of Occam’s telling us not to complicate the explanation any more than we have to.  In the three card Monte/shell game example, we go for the simplest, most straightforward explanation and lose everything.  So, we must, per the Razor, complicate the explanation of the pea or special card’s location in order to account for the greed and dishonesty of the dealer. The complications arise because of a compelling reason (necessitas).

On a more basic level, the application of Occam’s Razor discounts or downplays superfluous information or data that require additional proofs.  For example, let’s say that I drive down a country road, see a white cow in a nearby field, and say to myself, “There are white cows here.”

Ten minutes later, you drive by, see the same white cow in the same green field, and say to yourself, “There’s a white cow over there.”

According to Occam’s Actual Razor, who’s statement is most likely correct?  In this instance, your explanation wins out over mine.  Why?  Because I said “cows,” plural.  In order to validate my response, I would need to find another white cow in the vicinity.  In your statement, the white cow in the field is proof of itself.  No further evidence is necessary.
   
Of course, you could go hog wild overboard with this and say, “There’s a white cow over there....at least she’s white on one side....during this time of day....when in this field.”  But you get the drift, right?

More importantly, you can probably see how this applies to the JFK assassination.

_____________
* A writer going by the name J. Lee Marks is credited with penning all the articles in this issue.

**’Occam’ and ‘Ockham’ are both commonly found spellings for William.


Scroll down or click here to read the second part of this post.