KISS Principle and Occam's Razor

Name:

The KISS Principle and Occam’s Razor (also written as Ockham's Razor)

Description:

The Kiss Principle refers to the acronym for Keep It Simple, Stupid or the more polite version, Keep It Short and Simple.

There are various explanations as to what the principle actually means, but all have the key message that simplicity should be the goal and that unnecessary complexity should be avoided.

Others have formulated similar concepts and expressed similar ideas in the past:

Albert Einstein: “Everything should be made as simple as possible but no simpler.”

Leonardo Da Vinci: “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.”

Antoine de Saint Exupery: "It seems that perfection is reached not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away".

The KISS Principle and Occam's razor

From the vault (May 22, 2010). . .

Name: 

The KISS Principle and Occam’s Razor (also written as Ockham's Razor) 

Description: 

The Kiss Principle refers to the acronym for Keep It Simple, Stupid or the more polite version, Keep It Short and Simple. 

There are various explanations as to what the principle actually means, but all have the key message that simplicity should be the goal and that unnecessary complexity should be avoided. 

Others have formulated similar concepts and expressed similar ideas in the past: 

Albert Einstein: 

“Everything should be made as simple as possible but no simpler.” 

Leonardo Da Vinci: 

“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” 

Antoine de Saint Exupery: 

"It seems that perfection is reached not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away". 

There is a similar, but not equivalent, principle to Kiss known as Occam’s Razor, which is usually summarised as “The simplest explanation is usually the best one.” In medical circles this is sometimes expressed as “If you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.” 

Just as there are a number of formulations of the Kiss Principle, so there have likewise been numerous formulations and reformulations of Occam’s Razor, including the following: 

"If you have two theories that both explain the observed facts, then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along" 

"The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations." 

"If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, choose the simplest." 

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct." 

That is not to say that complexity should always be avoided as an explanation. The more complex explanation may actually be the correct one. However, where both a complex solution and a simple solution are possible and reasonable, the simpler one will usually be the correct one. 

Although there is an overlap between the Kiss Principle and Occam’s Razor, they are not the same. The Kiss Principle says to aim for simplicity and avoid complexity; Occam’s Razor says that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. 

Examples where Kiss not used: 

It is easier to show examples where the Kiss Principle has not been applied. 

One example of the opposite of the Kiss Principle are the cartoons of Rube Goldberg (such as the one above). A Rube Goldberg machine is one which performs a very simple task in an over-engineered, complex fashion, usually by a chain of motion events. There are numerous example on YouTube of people who have built Rube Godlberg machines. 

Other examples contrary to Kiss are: 

"instruction creep”:

where instructions increase in number and size over time until they are unmanageable; 

“function creep”:

where an item, process, or procedure designed for a specific purpose ends up serving another purpose for which it was never planned to perform; 

“scope creep”:

where a project’s scope is increased so that more tasks must be completed, without an increase in budget or time; and 

“creeping featurism”:

where systems become more complex over time as more and more features are added to the original device, plan etc. 

(So who works the VCR, DVD etc at your house? And how many functions do you actually use on your mobile phone?) 

Practical applications: 

Some practical applications of the Kiss Principle: 

- Break tasks into smaller tasks and deal with them as smaller ones. 

- Likewise break problems down into smaller problems and address the smaller ones. 

A related aspect: 

There are numerous interviews with the Great Randi on YouTube. Randi is a professional magician who is renowned for debunking paranormal claims and pseudoscience and who came to prominence for exposing spoonbender Uri Geller. He is also a founder of various skeptic associations. 

In one interview I saw, Randi stated as a principle that where two explanations are possible for something, one explanation is consistent with known laws and principles of the universe and the other requires you to suspend belief in those laws and principles, then the former should prevail until the other is proven. Thus when a child wakes and finds presents at the foot of the bed on Christmas Day morning, it could be that they were left by his or her parents during the night or it could be that they were left by Santa Claus. The former explanation should prevail until the later one is proven. Or if someone talks to the dead: either they are con artists (Randi has duplicated all such feats with simple trickery) or they really do talk to the dead. 

To see the memorable clip where Oz Tonight Sow host Don Lane threw a hissy fit with Randi for suggesting that Lane’s favourite, Doris Stokes, didn’t really talk to the dead, click on: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIPqUJiiMwc

Another interesting website to visit is that of the Australian Skeptics: 

http://www.skeptics.com.au/

By the way:

In philosophy, a razor is a principle or rule of thumb that allows one to eliminate ("shave off") unlikely explanations for a phenomenon, or avoid unnecessary actions, or they are guides to explaining things.

Some Razors

___________________ 

In philosophy, a razor is a principle or rule of thumb that allows one to eliminate ("shave off") unlikely explanations for a phenomenon, or avoid unnecessary actions. Or, they are guides to explaining things. 

___________________ 

Occam’s Razor: 

“Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.” 

Simpler version: 

Simpler explanations are more likely to be correct; avoid unnecessary or improbable assumptions. 

Comments: 

• The simpler explanation must satisfy all available evidence. Just because an explanation is the simplest one available, doesn’t make it the best one. If it fails to explain or ignores key facts, then it remains problematic. The best explanation then, is the one that fits the evidence, using the fewest assumptions. 

• Occam’s Razor, named after William of Ockham (1285–1347), is also illustrated by a maxim taught to medical students: Think horses, not zebras. In other words, if investigating illness, explore the commonplace before the exotic. 

___________________ 

Grice's Razor: 

As a principle of parsimony, conversational implications are to be preferred over semantic context for linguistic explanations. 

Simpler version: 

When in a conversation, prefer what the speaker meant over what the sentence he/she spoke literally meant. 

Comments: 

• Named after British philosopher and language expert Paul Grice (1913 – 1988), the razor requires that context should be looked at to determine meaning, not just what is being said, in isolation. 

___________________ 

Hanlon's Razor: 

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. 

Simpler version: 

Think stupidity before evil intent. 

Comments: 

• Named after Robert J Hanlon bit there is doubt as to whether he did in fact coin it. 

• Never rule out the possibility of stupidity and malice in combination. 

___________________ 

Hitchens's Razor: 

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." 

Simpler version: 

The burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim, and if this burden is not met, the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it. 

Comments: 

• The concept is named, echoing Occam's razor, for the journalist and writer Christopher Hitchens, who in a 2003 Slate article formulated it thus: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". 

• The dictum also appears in God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, a book by Hitchens published in 2007. 

• Hitchens's razor is actually an English translation of the Latin proverb quod grātīs asseritur, grātīs negātur ("What is freely asserted is freely dismissed"), which was commonly used in the 19th century. It takes a stronger stance than the Sagan standard ("Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"), instead applying to even non-extraordinary claims. 

• It reminds me of the dictum expounded by James Randi and his Skeptics Foundation: If two explanations are possible for something and one is consistent with known laws of the universe and the other requires suspension of such knowledge and beliefs, the former should prevail until the second is proven. 

• Thus if a child wakes on Christmas morning and finds presents under the tree, two explanations are possible: Mum and Dad put them there the night before or Santa came down the chimney and delivered them. The former should be adopted until the second is proven.

(More razors to come)

From the Vault: Some Razors

On the basis that a re-post is better than no post, here is one from the vault (time having been precious for the last few days because of my involvement, in a professional capacity, in a large court case which starts on Monday . . .

___________________ 

In philosophy, a razor is a principle or rule of thumb that allows one to eliminate ("shave off") unlikely explanations for a phenomenon, or avoid unnecessary actions. Or, they are guides to explaining things. 

___________________ 

Occam’s Razor: 

“Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.” 

Simpler version: 

Simpler explanations are more likely to be correct; avoid unnecessary or improbable assumptions. 

Comments: 

• The simpler explanation must satisfy all available evidence. Just because an explanation is the simplest one available, doesn’t make it the best one. If it fails to explain or ignores key facts, then it remains problematic. The best explanation then, is the one that fits the evidence, using the fewest assumptions. 

• Occam’s Razor, named after William of Ockham (1285–1347), is also illustrated by a maxim taught to medical students: Think horses, not zebras. In other words, if investigating illness, explore the commonplace before the exotic. 

___________________ 

Grice's Razor: 

As a principle of parsimony, conversational implications are to be preferred over semantic context for linguistic explanations. 

Simpler version: 

When in a conversation, prefer what the speaker meant over what the sentence he/she spoke literally meant. 

Comments: 

• Named after British philosopher and language expert Paul Grice (1913 – 1988), the razor requires that context should be looked at to determine meaning, not just what is being said, in isolation. 

___________________ 

Hanlon's Razor: 

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. 

Simpler version: 

Think stupidity before evil intent. 

Comments: 

• Named after Robert J Hanlon bit there is doubt as to whether he did in fact coin it. 

• Never rule out the possibility of stupidity and malice in combination. 

___________________ 

Hitchens's Razor: 

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." 

Simpler version: 

The burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim, and if this burden is not met, the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it. 

Comments: 

• The concept is named, echoing Occam's razor, for the journalist and writer Christopher Hitchens, who in a 2003 Slate article formulated it thus: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". 

• The dictum also appears in God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, a book by Hitchens published in 2007. 

• Hitchens's razor is actually an English translation of the Latin proverb quod grātīs asseritur, grātīs negātur ("What is freely asserted is freely dismissed"), which was commonly used in the 19th century. It takes a stronger stance than the Sagan standard ("Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"), instead applying to even non-extraordinary claims. 

• It reminds me of the dictum expounded by James Randi and his Skeptics Foundation: If two explanations are possible for something and one is consistent with known laws of the universe and the other requires suspension of such knowledge and beliefs, the former should prevail until the second is proven. 

• Thus if a child wakes on Christmas morning and finds presents under the tree, two explanations are possible: Mum and Dad put them there the night before or Santa came down the chimney and delivered them. The former should be adopted until the second is proven.

More razors to come.

The Duck Test

Last week I mentioned the saying that’s known as the Elephant Test, the dictum that something may be like an elephant: hard to describe but you know it when you see it. That saying has been quoted by judges in legal cases. 

Here is a corollary to that test, one that is known as the Duck Test: 

I posted on that back on 11 May 2011 and it’s worth another airing, so here it is. 

Ducks, Communists and Lawyers... 

"If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck." 

- Senator Joseph McCarthy, 

in a 1952 speech, suggesting a method for identifying communists and communist sympathizers. 

We lawyers like to use the above phrase. I have used it myself in court. 

Joseph McCarthy, quoted above, himself was a lawyer and a judge before serving in World War 2 as a marine. On completion of his war service he became a politician and hunter of communists, both real and imagined. He was not, however, the originator of the saying or the first to use it. 

The phrase is often referred to as the “duck test”” and is a crude, but often effective, form of reasoning that eliminates alternative, unlikely possibilities and identifies a most likely or most correct assessment. 

The saying is sometimes confused with the following: 

1. 

Occam’s Razor: 

“When there are two competing explanations for an event, the simpler is the more likely.” 

See: http://bytesdaily.blogspot.com/search?q=occam%27s 

2. 

Skeptic’s Test: 

“Where there are two competing explanations for an event, one explanation is consistent with laws of science, reason and logic and the other requires suspension of belief in such laws and principles, then the former should prevail until the latter is proven. 

Although there is some overlap, they are separate and distinct laws and principles. 

Assume a child awakes on Christmas morning to find presents at the foot of the bed. There are two explanations possible: Mum and Dad placed them there when little Johnny was asleep, or Santa delivered them. According to the skeptics test, it should be accepted that Mum and Dad delivered them until it is proven that Santa did it. 

Occam’s Razor would also support that explanation as the simpler of the two. 

Now assume that Johnny awakes to find the presents at the foot of his bed. He later finds identical wrapping paper and ribbon in the hall cupboard, plus he noticed Mum coming home from the shops with similar sized parcels. Again there are two possible explanations. One is that Santa brought the presents and it is entirely coincidental that Mum and Dad have the same wrapping paper and that he saw Mum coming home with similar parcels. The second is that that Santa left them. On the duck test, Johnny should assume Mum and Dad were the givers of the presents, not Santa. 

The more notable uses of the phrase, thereby popularising it, have been in connection with persons suspected of communism: 

US poet Whitcomb Riley (1849–1916) is believed to have originally coined the phrase about one hundred years ago in writing: 

“When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.” 

Emil Mazey (1913-1983), the secretary-treasurer of the United Automobile Workers for 33 years, said at a labour meeting in 1946 when he accused someone of being a communist: 

“I can’t prove you are a Communist. But when I see a bird that quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, has feathers and webbed feet and associates with ducks—I’m certainly going to assume that he IS a duck.” 

In 1950 Richard Patterson Jnr, the US ambassador to Guatemala accused the Guatemalan government of being communist and stated: 

“Suppose you see a bird walking around in a farm yard. This bird has no label that says 'duck'. But the bird certainly looks like a duck. Also, he goes to the pond and you notice that he swims like a duck. Then he opens his beak and quacks like a duck. Well, by this time you have probably reached the conclusion that the bird is a duck, whether he's wearing a label or not." 

Douglas Adams’ novel Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency uses a variant: 

“If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.”

Ducks, Communists and Lawyers...

"If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck."

- Senator Joseph McCarthy,

in a 1952 speech, suggesting a method for identifying communists and communist sympathizers.

We lawyers like to use the above phrase. I have used it myself in court.

Joseph McCarthy, quoted above, himself was a lawyer and a judge before serving in World War 2 as a marine. On completion of his war service he became a politician and hunter of communists, both real and imagined. He was not, however, the originator of the saying or the first to use it.

The phrase is often referred to as the “duck test”” and is a crude, but often effective, form of reasoning that eliminates alternative, unlikely possibilities and identifies a most likely or most correct assessment.

The saying is sometimes confused with the following:

1. Occam’s Razor: “When there are two competing explanations for an event, the simpler is the more likely.”

See: http://bytesdaily.blogspot.com/search?q=occam%27s

2. Skeptic’s Test: “Where there are two competing explanations for an event, one explanation is consistent with laws of science, reason and logic and the other requires suspension of belief in such laws and principles, then the former should prevail until the latter is proven.

Although there is some overlap, they are separate and distinct laws and principles.

The Pareto Principle

 

Sometimes one achieves a blinding insight into the hidden workings of the universe by reading a simple principle of explanation.

Some of these have been previously written about in Bytes:

·         The Peter Principle (“In a hierarchy, employees rise to their level of incompetence”).

·         Dr Peter’s Second Principle (“Work on a task expands to fit the time allowed for the task”).

·         Occam’s Razor (“The simplest explanation is usually the best one”).

·         The KISS Principle (“Keep It Simple, Stupid”).

·         The 6 P’s (“Prior planning prevents piss poor performance”).

·         Murphy’s Law (“If anything can go wrong, it will, and at the worst possible time”).

It still fascinates me that such profound truths become self evident when pointed out in a simple, easy to understand format.

Thus when Hofstadter’s Law is explained – “It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take Hofstadter’s Law into account – it all becomes clear as to why deadlines are unable to be met or one feels that one is always behind on the scheduled times and task.

So it is with another Law of the Universe, one known as the Pareto Principle.

What is it?

Also known as the 80-20 Rule, the Law of the Vital Few and The Principle of Factor Sparsity, it holds that in many situations and for many events and circumstances, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes. 

Developed by Joseph Juran, he gave it the name Pareto Principle after Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, who observed in 1906 that 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population.  Juran identified the principle when he observed that 20% of the pea pods in his garden contained 80% of the peas.

Joseph Juran (1904-2008)

Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923)

How does it work? 

The principle is based on the fact that most things in life are not distributed evenly.  Each unit of time, or work, does not contribute the same amount.  Most things are not 1/1, where each unit of “input” (effort, time, labour) contributes exactly the same amount of output. 

Pareto’s first observation in 1971, that 80% of Italy’s wealth was held by 20% of the population, caused him to investigate other countries.  His enquiries showed that a similar distribution applied.  A 1992 UN report showed that 20% of the world’s population controlled 82.7% of the world’s income. 

The 80-20 rule also applies to the 80-20 subgroups.  Thus we find that 80% of the world’s wealth is vested in 20% of the population, but that within the top 10 persons, the top 3 have as much wealth as the next 7 persons combined. 

What are some examples? 

·         20% of the input creates 80% of the result

·         20% of the workers produce 80% of the result

·         20% of the customers create 80% of the revenue

·         20% of the bugs cause 80% of the crashes

·         20% of the features cause 80% of the usage

·         80% of sales time is spent on 20% of the customers, not necessarily the profitable 20%

·         80% of the traffic in town travels over 20% of the roads

·         80% of benefit comes from the first 20% of effort

·         80% of our personal telephone calls are to 20% of the people in our address book

·         80% of your profits come from 20% of your customers

What is it good for? 

The value of the Pareto Principle is the recognition that most things are not distributed evenly, so that equal allocation of time, labour and resources may not be appropriate in various situations and circumstances. Identify which aspects or activities generate the most results and focus on them. 

As an example, if 80% of a company’s income is coming from 20% of its products, it makes more sense to focus advertising and marketing on the 20%.  Microsoft found that fixing the top 20% of the most reported bugs eliminated 80% of the errors and crashes. 

That is not to say that the other 80% can necessarily be disregarded.  If 80% of an item is built in the first 20% of the time, that does not mean that the remaining 20% can be dispensed with. 

The Pareto principle is a means of focusing attention on main items and activities.  It is an observation only and can be a handy tool but should not replace commonsense. 

The Pareto Principle has been extended to a variety of fields and situations, and to an ever increasing range of cause and effect phenomena. 

Does it always apply?  Is it always 80-20? 

No.  The fact that it is 80% and 20% is coincidental in adding up to100%. Apples and oranges.  It could be 80/20, 90/10, or 90/20, the numbers don’t have to add to 100.  In one situation 20% of the sales staff may account for 80% of the sales, in another it may be that 40% of the sales staff account for 50% of the sales.

Hitchens' and Other Razors

No 1 Son ,Thomas, sends me text messages from time to time with suggestions that I might like to do a Bytes thereon. The latest was an article with 6 Christopher Hitchens quotes.  Thomas is an admirer of Hitchens and his works.

Hitchens (1949-2011) was a British-American author and journalist who was known for his contrary views on various matters, notably on religion. Hitchens saw the concept of a God or a supreme being as destroying individual freedom. His view was that free expression and scientific discovery should replace religion as a means of teaching ethics and defining human civilization.

One of the Hitchens quotations sent by Thomas has become known as Hitchens’ Razor (should it be Hitchens’s Razor?):

“What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

It is a commonsense approach to many things

* * * * *

Some comments:

* * * * *

In philosophy, a razor is a principle or premise that allows one to eliminate unlikely explanations for a phenomenon. 

* * * * *

The full Hitchens’ quote:

* * * * *

Hitchens was not the first to coin the phrase or the methodology expressed by it. The Latin proverb “Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur” has been widely used since the 19th century. It translates to “What is asserted without reason may be denied without reason”, meaning that if no grounds have been given for an assertion, then there are no grounds needed to reject it.

Hitchens’ use of the phrase in English and his reliance on the methodology expressed by it has brought it to greater public awareness .

* * * * *

Another noted opponent of religion, Richard Dawkins has formulated a different version of the same law:

“The onus is on you to say why, the onus is not on the rest of us to say why not.”

* * * * *

Some other razors:

Occam’s Razor:

When faced with competing hypotheses, select the one that makes the fewest assumptions

(sometimes paraphrased as the simplest explanation is usually the right one)

Popper’s falsifiability principle:

a theory can be scientific only if it is falsifiable, that what is unfalsifiable is unscientific

(don’t feel bad if you don’t understand this, I don’t get it either).

Newton’s flaming laser sword:

If something cannot be settled by experiment then it is not worthy of debate.

* * * * *

Some philosophers have proposed anti-razors, for example:

Plenitude Principle:

Everything that can happen will happen eventually.

* * * * *