OCKHAM’S RAZOR: A BRIEF STUDY

Introduction

Design as a discipline has always been as much about problem solving as about aesthetics. Over the years, teachers and practitioners of design have generously adopted principles and heuristic axioms from other academic disciplines and molded them to suit their own design challenges of the day. This process of creative borrowing has not only enriched design, but it has also provided a new lease of life to these laws and principles in general.  

One such principle borrowed from philosophy and logic (Thoburn, 1918), but which has become integral to design and has come to permeate through the works of many designers, architects, and engineers, is the law of Ockham’s razor. Also known as law of parsimony or principle of simplicity, Ockham’s razor has achieved a fair degree of acquaintance with the general populace because of references to it in Sci-Fi movie Contactand in popular TV shows Castle,House, and X-Files.  

A Historical Perspective

Widely attributed to the eponymous medieval Franciscan friar and logician William of Ockham (Safire, 1999), the origin of this principle can be traced back to the works of Ptolemy and Aristotle. Aristotle discussed this principle in his book Posterior Analytics: “We may assume the superiority ceteris paribus [other things being equal] of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses” (McKeon, 1941, p. 150).Ptolemy, on the other hand, considered it to be “a good principle to explain the phenomena by the simplest hypotheses possible” (Franklin, 2001, p. 241). 

However, the name of Ockham or Occam got inalienably associated with this principle because he is said to have made extensive use of this reasoning principle. The term “razor” in the popular title refers to the idea used for “distinguishing between two hypotheses either by shaving away unnecessary assumptions or cutting apart two similar conclusions” (Yablonski, 2017). 

Safire (1999) stated: 

Stephen Hawking, in his 1988 “A Brief History of Time” noted that “it seems better to employ the principle known as Occam's razor and cut out all the features of the theory which cannot be observed.” The old Franciscan friar (probably bearded; shaving gear was hard to come by in the abbey) was figuratively cutting out details. (p. 14)

The core of William’s argument was a mantra—entia non sunt mutlipicanda praeter necessitate (entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity)—apocryphally attributed to him. In later years, however, this idea was lapped up by mathematicians and physicists (Safire, 1999). Over the years, the central rule of the razor has been and can be stated in many ways. 

According to Adams (1987), these are four ways stated by William of Ockham:

(A) It is futile to do with more what can be done with fewer. [Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora.] 

(B) When a proposition comes out true for things, if two things suffice for its truth, it is superfluous to assume a third. [Quando propositio veri-ficatur pro rebus, si duae res sufficiunt ad eius veritatem, superfluum est ponere tertiam.] 

(C) Plurality should not be assumed without necessity. [Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate.] 

(D) No plurality should be assumed unless it can be proved (a) by reason, or (b) by experience, or (c) by some infallible authority. [Nulla plura-litas est ponenda nisi per rationem vel experientiam vel auctoritatem illius, qui non potest falli nec errare, potest convinci.] (pp. 156-157)

Ockham’s Razor in Design

“Implicit in Ockham’s razor is the idea that unnecessary elements decrease a design’s efficiency, and increase the probability of unanticipated consequences” (Lidwell, W., Holden, K., & Butler, J., 2012, p. 172). When seen from a designer’s prism, this device lends it to the interpretation that given a choice between functionally equivalent designs, the simplest design should be selected (Thoburn, 1918). 

Thus, by advocating introduction of complexity only when it is absolutely necessary, Ockham’s razor can ensure that “designs stay lean and void of superfluous elements that do not add value to the user’s experience” (Yabolnski, 2017). This idea has found a firm grounding in the design community and, in recent decades, it has seen an almost cultish following, especially after the success of Apple’s minimalist designs. But, on closer look, it can be concluded that although most experts agree on the general criticality of shaving off dispensable clutter to arrive at an effective solution, there is no objective agreement on the desirable level or complexity.

John Maeda (2006) in his book The Laws of Simplicityexplores this seemingly dichotomous theme rising from Ockham’s razor: “The fundamental question is, where's the balance between simplicity and complexity? The simplest way to achieve simplicity is through thoughtful reduction. When in doubt, just remove.” He has laid down ten laws of simplicity wherein he touches on critical strains of simple design. His tenth law, which he has named as “The One”, states: “Simplicity is about subtracting the obvious and adding the meaningful” (Maeda, 2006).

Though Maeda was writing about simplicity in general, these laws can be directly applied to the field of design as well. With a profusion of technological tools available to designers, it is easy to add more and more dimensions and features to products; but unnecessary design elements can not only decrease a design’s effectiveness, they can also easily fail and create problems (Lidwell et al., 2010). 

In order to create great products, designers should use the principle of Ockham’s razor to “select among multiple, functionally equivalent designs” (Lidwell et al., 2010, p. 172) and get rid of unnecessary clutter. After all, Antoine de Saint-Exupery has rightly said, “Perfection is attained not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.”

Design Examples

Good Examples

The principle of Ockham’s razor is commonly used in the world of design. These are three good examples:

 1. Paper clip

It is one of the best examples of Ockham’s razor. Unlike bulky binder clips, a paper clip is minimal, lightweight, and occupies very little space. It can easily be used to clip a large stack of papers. 

2. Google Duo

The app is not just simple and aesthetically pleasing, but it is also very easy to use. Like most Google apps and websites, Google Duo, too, has no unnecessary features. It is designed in a way that is uncomplicated and efficient.

3. Screwdriver

A screwdriver is functional, simple, and useful. It is designed for a single, straightforward function, and it performs it with ease.

Bad Examples

These are some design examples which follow the Ockham’s razor in principle but, in the process, end up creating some usability problems. These are three bad design examples: 

1. USB connector

A USB connector is a good example of Ockham’s razor. It is simple as well as functional, however, it is difficult to plug in. This is primarily because of its rectangular design. Despite being handy, a USB cable fails in terms of usability.

Suggestions to make improvements

a. Design a reversible USB connector. This will ensure that the connector can be plugged either way and still work.

b. Change the rectangular shape to something that is better defined and more angular (like an HDMI cable). This will help plugging it easily without causing frustration to the user.

2. Apple TV Remote

The Apple TV Remote is slim and aesthetically pleasing, but it can be frustrating to use. This is primarily because of the way it has been designed. Even though its design adheres to the Ockham’s razor principle (“It is futile to do with more what can be done with fewer”) (Adams, 1987, p. 156) and has very few visual elements, it not ergonomically useful. The remote is too sleek to handle, and the buttons can be confusing for a new user. For example, a new user may not be able to adjust volume or change channels intuitively.

Suggestions to make improvements

a.     Design a TV remote which can be held more naturally and easily. It is important to make sure that it has a good grip and is ergonomically useful.

b.     Add more easily identifiable buttons that can be instinctively recognized even by a new user. 

3. Stainless Steel Peeler

Compared to other peelers, a stainless-steel peeler like this has no extraneous elements and yet it is inconvenient to use. Even though it follows the principle of Ockham’s Razor (given a choice between functionally equivalent designs, the simplest design should be selected) (Thoburn, 1918), its design is flawed. It can exert unnecessary pressure on the user’s fingers while he/she tries to peel vegetables.

Suggestions to make improvements

a.     Design a peeler with a better grip so that it is more comfortable to use.

b.     Use softer material like rubber or silicon for the handle to ensure comfort and ease of use. This will also ensure that the user does not end up hurting himself/herself.

Conclusion

Despite its theoretical simplicity and wide popularity, Ockham’s razor is a mental construct, and, like any mental model, it comes with its own set of limitations. To begin with, the definition of what is simple is very subjective and depends on the designer. In the long term, a design decision must be backed by empirical evidence, UX research, and not just simplicity.

But all in all, Ockham’s razor, despite its aforementioned limitations has proved to be resilient. Author Harlan Coben has pointed out that the key lies in reaching to the very essence of what Ockham meant when he supposedly postulated the idea. 

Coben (2016), in his book Fool Me Once,writes:

Most people oversimplify Occam’s razor to mean the simplest answer is usually correct. But the real meaning, what the Franciscan friar William of Ockham really wanted to emphasize, is that you shouldn’t complicate, that you shouldn’t “stack” a theory if a simpler explanation was at the ready. Pare it down. Prune the excess.

If looked this way, the limitations of Ockham’s razor can be overcome, and it can truly unlock its potential in informing good designing choices.

References

1.    Adams, M.M. (1987). William Ockham. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame.

2.    Coben, H.(2016). Fool Me Once. New York: Dutton, Penguin Group.

3.     Franklin, J.  (2001). The science of conjecture: evidence and probability before Pascal. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

4.    Lidwell, W., Holden, K., & Butler, J. (2010). Universal principles of design. Beverly, MA: Rockport.

5.    Maeda, J. (2006).The Laws of Simplicity. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

6.    McKeon, R. (1941). The basic works of Aristotle. New York: Random House.

7.    Safire, W. (1999, January 31). Ockham's Razor's Close Shave. New York Times Magazine, 14.

8.    Thorburn, W.B. (1918). The myth of Occam’s razor. Mind, volume 27, 345-347.

9.    Yablonski, J. (2017, September 11). Designing with Occam’s Razor. Retrieved from: https://medium.com/@jonyablonski/designing-with-occams-razor-3692df2f3c7f

Note: I wrote this paper as part of a class assignment at Bentley University.