OCCAM'S RAZOR

In a biology lab at Harvard University, a few years back, students performed a ground–breaking experiment.  After securing government funding and all of the proper clearances to experiment on animals, the undergraduate students rolled up their sleeves and got to work.

The would-be scientists set a frog on the work surface of a lab table, and when one of them said, “Jump frog, jump!” The frog jumped.

Now the experiment begins.  The biologists then cut the frog’s right front leg off and cauterized the wound to prolong the frog’s life.  The same researcher again said, “Jump frog, jump!”  The frog jumped again.

After recording those results the biologists removed the frog’s left front leg in the same humane manner and again urged, “Jump frog, jump!”  Guess what?  The frog jumped.

The researchers, excited with the raw data they were accumulating, then removed the frog’s right rear leg, and with some nervousness again said, “Jump frog, jump!”  After a few seconds delay, and with much effort on his behalf, the frog eventually jumped.  The science students cheered momentarily and then returned to their notebooks jotting notes, data, and observations.

In the experiment’s final stage they humanely removed the frog’s left rear leg and again one of them said, “Jump frog, jump!”  But the frog didn’t jump.  They repeated the request, this time louder and more urgently, “JUMP FROG, JUMP!”  The frog didn’t move at all.  So in unison the scientists all shouted, “JUMP FROG, JUMP!”   Still no movement by the frog, but a lot of note taking and head scratching by the scientists.

A week later, after many discussions, some of them heated others more civil, the researchers revealed their results to their professor and the rest of the class.  Their conclusion?

FROGS THAT HAVE NO LEGS ARE DEAF, UNABLE TO HEAR.

What?
I suppose that could be one conclusion, but probably not the one I would have arrived at. I would have gone with the far simpler, and more obvious, explanation that frogs without legs CAN’T jump whether they are deaf or not.

In my biology course at the University of Minnesota I was taught about Occam’s Razor; the principle that states, "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

To be fair, the Harvard students did their experiment at the beginning of the semester.  They probably were introduced to Occam’s Razor shortly AFTER they presented their questionable conclusion.  I learned about Occam’s Razor after the midterm of my biology course and it is probably the best lesson I learned in that class.  I’ve used a modified form of it quite often in the real world outside of the biology lab.

When faced with multiples answers to a situation, the simpler one is better.

 Driving down an unfamiliar street with every car heading directly towards me with horns blaring and people yelling? 

Possible answer: Some of these people are driving on the wrong side of the street, obviously don't know what they're doing, and should be ticketed for those offenses. 

Simple answer: I’m heading the wrong way down a one-way street.

When faced with multiples answers to a situation, the simpler one is better.

Staying up late on a Friday night surfing the web and blogging leaves me needing a nap on Saturday afternoon.

Possible answer:  The electron-field created by excessive contact with a computer in massive doses (i.e. five day work-week/8 hours/day plus 4 hours Friday night) effects my thyroid causing hypothyroidism making me tired on Saturday afternoon.

Simple answer:  Staying up too late one night makes me tired the next day.

When faced with multiples answers to a situation, the simpler one is better.

A faction of Minnesotans are attempting to decree that discrimination against gay and lesbian citizens of our state will be the law of the land by introducing a ballot initiative to amend the state constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman.

Possible answer: Homosexuals being able to legally marry in the state of Minnesota is immoral, unnatural, and against God’s wishes.  Allowing same-sex marriage threatens all marriages that consist of a man and a woman, and will tear at the very fabric of the traditional family.

Simple answer:  My God enjoys and rewards love.  My God believes in fairness for ALL.  If two people are committed to each other and in love, they deserve the right to be married, with all of the honors and privileges that status affords.  Marriage should be for all.

It’s just that simple.  Please keep that in mind when you enter the voting booth in Minnesota next November.

When faced with multiples answers to a situation, the simpler one is better.

WHO KNEW?