── ── Decision-making · Choose sideways among explanations
Occam's Razor
Occam's Razor is the principle that when several explanations all fit the available evidence equally well, you should prefer the one that requires the fewest assumptions. It is a tiebreaker, not a law of truth: simplicity guides which explanation to test first, not which one is guaranteed correct.
How it works
List the competing explanations that are each consistent with the evidence, then count what each one has to assume—the number of independent, unproven moving parts it needs to be true. The explanation carrying the least unproven baggage is the one to favor.
The razor cuts only between explanations that fit the facts equally. If a more complex explanation accounts for evidence the simple one cannot, complexity wins—the rule is about not multiplying assumptions beyond necessity, not about always choosing the smallest story.
When to use it
- Debugging a production incident where you're tempted by an exotic cause before ruling out the obvious one
- A user-research finding has both a flattering complex reading and a plain unflattering one
- Choosing between a sprawling strategic narrative and a simple direct explanation of why a metric moved
- Evaluating a vendor or hire whose story requires many things to all be true at once
When not to use it
When the simple explanation demonstrably fails to account for the evidence—forcing simplicity onto a genuinely complex system produces confident, wrong conclusions.
Worked example
Wegener and Continental Drift, 1912
Alfred Wegener proposed that the continents had once been joined and drifted apart—a single mechanism that explained matching coastlines, shared fossils, and aligned rock formations across oceans. The prevailing alternative required separate ad hoc explanations for each of those facts. The simpler unifying account was nonetheless resisted for decades, a reminder that the razor tells you what to favor, not what the establishment will accept.
Why it matters for founders
Founders under pressure tend to reach for elaborate explanations—a competitor conspiracy, a complex causal chain—when a plain one (the onboarding is confusing; the price is too high) fits the data just as well and is far cheaper to act on. Occam's Razor keeps you from spending weeks chasing a baroque theory before testing the obvious one. deciqAI's agents apply the same restraint: favor the explanation with the fewest assumptions, then verify it before acting.
Install this skill (free, MIT)
npx skills add deciqAI/knowledge-skillsFAQ
Does Occam's Razor prove the simplest explanation is true?
No. It only tells you which explanation to prefer and test first when several fit the evidence equally. Reality is sometimes complicated, and the razor is a heuristic, not a guarantee.
What counts as 'simpler' under Occam's Razor?
Fewer independent assumptions that have to be true, not shorter or more familiar. An explanation that needs three unproven coincidences is more complex than one that needs a single mechanism.