Posted by Pete McBreen 02 Mar 2010 at 20:25
Yes, there is a fancy name for simpler explanations - Occam’s Razor - or Ockham if you prefer the old spelling, but I prefer to use plain english.
A common problem with beginners to software development is that when an error occurs, they manage to convince themselves that they have found an error in the compiler or computer. Yes, sometimes this is actually happens, compilers do have errors, but a much simpler, and more likely explanation is that they have made a normal beginner mistake in their code. Of the two, it makes more sense to investigate the simpler cause first and only then, if no problems can be found is it worth while investigating alternate explanations. Most of the time the simple explanation is the one to go with. If a program suddenly starts failing, and there have been some recent edits to the code, then the simplest explanation is that the error was surfaced by the changes, so that is the best place to start looking.
Climate science as a good example of simpler explanations
One explanation of the problem of climate change and rising CO2 levels is that there has been a conspiracy of scientists to raise the specter of anthropogenic global warming so that they get fame and fortune.
A simpler explanation is that the conspiracy is n the other side. That some large corporations with vested interests are leading a campaign to convince the general public that there is nothing strange going on with the climate.
One way of testing which of these is a more likely explanation is to look at past behavior. Can we find any evidence of scientists acting in concert to deceive anyone? No, sorry, nothing there. Sure there have been cases where an individual scientist or group of scientists have been enthusiastic about an idea that turned out to be incorrect, but these cases have never lasted for long and even early on there was the normal skepticism of scientists asking questions.
Looking to the other side, can we find any evidence of corporations acting in concert to deceive people? Yes, several times, often with significant deleterious effects on people and the environment. Car and oil companies managed to keep lead in petrol for a long time after the effects of low level of lead exposure were known to harm humans. Lead was only removed when catalytic converters were required to reduce smog and the lead was poisoning the catalytic converters.
Another example, early on the car companies bought up and dismantled many of the electric trolley companies thus forcing people to buy cars in order to get around in cities. Very few cities have effective light rail transit these days, even though in the 1930’s most major cities had these electric trolley lines. San Francisco is one of the few cities that still has the remnants of the old system still running.
Another example is the tobacco industry, managing to spread enough doubt about the effects of smoking so that for over forty years there was insufficient effort put into preventing people from becoming addicted to the nicotine in cigarettes. End result of this was a massive lawsuit and damages awarded against the industry, but even now, the public attitude is such that the tobacco companies can still sell very addictive substances and keep on addicting new generations of customers (aka addicts).
With these examples, the simplest explanation of the public debate over global warming is that there is a conspiracy among the major corporations who have a vested interest in the Coal and Oil sectors of industry to spread doubt and uncertainty. Very year the doubt proceeds, the corporations generate billions in profit. Following the money is always a simpler explanation.