argument top image

What is the Mind-Body problem?
Back to question

Occam’s Razor: The simplest position is the most likely position

According to Occam’s Razor, the simplest explanation is most likely to be true. There is no reason for there to be two worlds, simply because it is possible for there to just be one: the material realm.


William of Ockham (or Occam) was a thirteenth-century scholastic philosopher. His principle gives preference to simplicity in cases where there are competing explanatory theories.

The Argument

Materialists often cite Occam’s Razor in support of their position. Occam’s Razor is the argument that in any given argument, the position with the most metaphysical simplicity is the more likely position. At its core, it means that the simpler the position, the more likely it is to be true.[1] Materialists deploy this argument as evidence for materialism’s superiority over dualism. Because materialism rests on the existence of just one world, the physical one, rather than hinging on the existence of two components, it is the simpler argument. Both dualism and materialism are unproven theories. But according to Occam’s Razor materialism is the more likely explanation due to its simplicity.

Counter arguments

Ockham's Razor does not mean materialism is true. It simply states that in cases where there are competing claims, the simpler claim is more likely to be true. In science and history, the more complex explanation has frequently been proven true. Alfred North Whitehead summed up the dangers of relying heavily on Ockham's Razor as evidence for one argument over another. He said, "the aim of science is to seek the simplest explanation of complex facts. We are apt to fall into the error of thinking that the facts are simple because simplicity is the goal of our quest. The guiding motto in the life of every natural philosopher should be “Seek simplicity and distrust it.”



The simplest explanation for something is usually the correct one. Asserting humans are made of one substance instead of two is the simpler explanation. Therefore, it is more likely that we are made of one substance not two.

Rejecting the premises

That doesn't mean materialism is true.


This page was last edited on Thursday, 11 Jun 2020 at 17:23 UTC

Explore related arguments