William of Ockham was a 14th-century Christian cleric and philosopher. He is famous for formulating a "rule of thumb" that is known as Ockham's Razor. The rule is simply this: if you have to choose between theories, you should choose the theory that relies on the fewest assumptions. That seems like common sense. Assumptions are substitutes for facts--our best guesses that we use to fill in the blanks where we don't have facts. It seems pretty reasonable to say that the theory with the most facts and the fewest assumptions, wins.
That is especially true when you consider that, if you are willing to make enough assumptions, you can choose to believe just about anything. And your belief will be "unfalsifiable". Because as soon as anyone presents you with evidence that your belief is false, you will simply introduce another assumption--an ad hoc hypothesis--to explain away the evidence that has been presented.
So let's consider all of the recent conspiracy theories about the Justice Department and the intelligence community. Robert Mueller's investigation has produced nearly 20 indictments, including 13 Russians accused of espionage. These indictments are approved by a grand jury. A grand jury is 16 to 23 Americans chosen for jury duty just like what happens in your home town. And on a grand jury, 3/4 of the total number of jurors have to approve an indictment before it is handed down. Mueller's investigation has also produced several guilty pleas from Americans who worked on the Trump campaign or transition team. These people have confessed to lying about their contacts with Russians. Just last week, one of them was sentenced to serve time in jail for perjury. In response to this, and in spite of the fact that the Special Counsel is a Republican, conservatives assert that the American justice department and intelligence community are engaged in a politically-motivated conspiracy to attack and undermine President Trump.
Contrast this investigation with the many investigations that occurred in the Obama administration. There was a steady stream of investigations, including the Special Committee on Benghazi, which holds the record for the longest congressional investigation in our history. Yet those investigations did not produce a single indictment or guilty plea. And even in the fifteen months since the Republicans have gained control of the Executive Branch, there are no charges, no indictments, no guilty pleas.
So we are confronted with two hypotheses. On the one hand, we can accept the facts at face value. Assuming that the system of procedural justice has been applied uniformly in both cases, the difference in outcomes is a reflection of real wrongdoing on the part of the Trump campaign and transition team and the absence of wrongdoing on the part of the Obama administration. On the other hand, we can start adding "ad hoc hypotheses" to explain why there are tangible results from the current Special Counsel's investigation and no tangible results from the many investigations during the Obama administration. We can assume that Republicans and Democrats in the Justice and intelligence communities conspired to protect President Obama and Hillary Clinton several years before Donald Trump decided to run for President. Oh yeah, and all of the press except Fox News was in on it, too. We can further assume that these diverse conspirators also decided to attack and undermine an administration of the opposite party once Trump was elected. These are all ad hoc hypotheses. If there was evidence of a "deep state" conspiracy, the Republican Attorney General could produce his own indictments.
I know what William of Ockham would say!!
That is especially true when you consider that, if you are willing to make enough assumptions, you can choose to believe just about anything. And your belief will be "unfalsifiable". Because as soon as anyone presents you with evidence that your belief is false, you will simply introduce another assumption--an ad hoc hypothesis--to explain away the evidence that has been presented.
So let's consider all of the recent conspiracy theories about the Justice Department and the intelligence community. Robert Mueller's investigation has produced nearly 20 indictments, including 13 Russians accused of espionage. These indictments are approved by a grand jury. A grand jury is 16 to 23 Americans chosen for jury duty just like what happens in your home town. And on a grand jury, 3/4 of the total number of jurors have to approve an indictment before it is handed down. Mueller's investigation has also produced several guilty pleas from Americans who worked on the Trump campaign or transition team. These people have confessed to lying about their contacts with Russians. Just last week, one of them was sentenced to serve time in jail for perjury. In response to this, and in spite of the fact that the Special Counsel is a Republican, conservatives assert that the American justice department and intelligence community are engaged in a politically-motivated conspiracy to attack and undermine President Trump.
Contrast this investigation with the many investigations that occurred in the Obama administration. There was a steady stream of investigations, including the Special Committee on Benghazi, which holds the record for the longest congressional investigation in our history. Yet those investigations did not produce a single indictment or guilty plea. And even in the fifteen months since the Republicans have gained control of the Executive Branch, there are no charges, no indictments, no guilty pleas.
So we are confronted with two hypotheses. On the one hand, we can accept the facts at face value. Assuming that the system of procedural justice has been applied uniformly in both cases, the difference in outcomes is a reflection of real wrongdoing on the part of the Trump campaign and transition team and the absence of wrongdoing on the part of the Obama administration. On the other hand, we can start adding "ad hoc hypotheses" to explain why there are tangible results from the current Special Counsel's investigation and no tangible results from the many investigations during the Obama administration. We can assume that Republicans and Democrats in the Justice and intelligence communities conspired to protect President Obama and Hillary Clinton several years before Donald Trump decided to run for President. Oh yeah, and all of the press except Fox News was in on it, too. We can further assume that these diverse conspirators also decided to attack and undermine an administration of the opposite party once Trump was elected. These are all ad hoc hypotheses. If there was evidence of a "deep state" conspiracy, the Republican Attorney General could produce his own indictments.
I know what William of Ockham would say!!
RSS Feed
