CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Occam's razor

philosophical principle used to judge credibility of statements

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionSep 7, 2026
Entity authorityQ131012 ↗
Source-derived summary

In philosophy, Occam's razor (also spelled Ockham's razor or Ocham's razor; Latin: novacula Occami) is the problem-solving principle that recommends searching for explanations constructed with the smallest possible set of elements. It is also known as the principle of parsimony or the law of parsimony (Latin: lex parsimoniae). Attributed to William of Ockham, a 14th-century English philosopher and theologian, it is frequently cited as Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, which translates as "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity", although Occam never used those words. Popularly, the principle is sometimes paraphrased as "of two competing theories, the simpler explanation of an entity is to be preferred".

The philosophical razor advocates that when presented with competing hypotheses about the same prediction and both hypotheses have equal explanatory power, one should prefer the hypothesis that requires the fewest assumptions, and that this is not meant to be a way of choosing between hypotheses that make different predictions. Similarly, in science, Occam's razor is used as an abductive heuristic in the development of theoretical models rather than as a rigorous arbiter between candidate models.

History

The phrase Occam's razor did not appear until a few centuries after William of Ockham's death in 1347. Libert Froidmont, in his 1649 Philosophia Christiana de Anima (On Christian Philosophy of the Soul) claimed to have coined the phrase novacula occami when he described Gregory of Rimini, one of Ockham's critics. Ockham did not invent this principle, but its fame – and its association with him – may be due to the frequency and effectiveness with which he used it. Ockham stated the principle in various ways, but the most popular version – "Entities are not to be multiplied without necessity" (Non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate) – was formulated by the Irish Franciscan philosopher John Punch in his 1639 commentary on the works of Duns Scotus.

Editorial summary

“Occam's razor” enters the record as philosophical principle used to judge credibility of statements. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Occam's, razor and philosophical can confirm, complicate or overturn.

Editorial reviewA practical starting point whose main value is the path it opens into stronger specialist and primary sources. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1347, 1649, 1639—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its strongest next move is a source search built around Occam's, razor and philosophical.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

“Occam's razor” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Occam's, razor and philosophical provides the most credible route into that argument.

Evidence profile

The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 7, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q131012. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1347, 1649 and 1639.

Critical limits

A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Occam's razor”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Occam's razor primary sources, Occam's razor archive and Occam's research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Occam's razor”?
  2. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
  3. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Occam's razor” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.