Razor Photography
A look at what is currently available on eBay
Before applying Occam's Razor should the person be familiar with the subject discussed?
Any layman can have an opinion and most people can understand the concept of Occam's Razor. But when formulating a hypothesis on a subject wouldn't it be best if the person postulating his ideas was an expert on the subject. For example: Photographic Analysis - To a layman a certain part of a picture may be a smudge. To an expert that smudge may be a lot more than perceived because of his understanding of photography and varying factors.
So, again, shouldn't we be experts or very familiar with subject matter before asserting what is the simplest of the competing theories?
"and most people can understand the concept of Occam's Razor."
Actually, most people do NOT understand Occam's Razor all that well and most do think it simply means that the "simplest" explanation is the "best" one.
It really means something more akin to the explanation with fewest assumptions, invoked unknown entities, or unnecessary entities is more likely to be true.
It also only applies when the real reason is unknown, so if someone who knows a more advanced and accurate reason for a photographic smudge is talking to one who does not know, then the knowledge of the more advanced theory it still better than the "simpler" one that suffers from a lack of understanding because that lack of understanding forces one to invoke unknown entities as causes.
For example, just saying "God did it" is a much simpler "cause" for some chemical reaction, like the interacting of two acids, but using Occam's Razor the actual chemical definition of what happens on a atomic level is still the "better" theory to go with (despite being FAR more complex sounding) because it invokes the fewest unknown, unprovable entities (i.e., a god figure). Talking about it at an atomic level has far more steps and far more complex mechanisms, but they are understood and provable mechanisms so they are still better mechanisms.
