"==Science== 
 The claim that Ockham's razor is a principle of science is nonsense. The problem with the concept is that in science the method for preferring one explanation over another is not the application of Ockham's razor, but by observation of and experiment on nature. In order to decide if a given explanation has entities multiplied beyond necessity one only needs to test the explanation against the entities. Once observation and experiment has shown that a given entity has no effect then it is completely unnecessary to invoke Ockham's razor. One does not need it because one now has observation and experiments to show that a given entity is not necessary. And of course this can't be determined until one goes to nature. Appeals to Ockham's razor as some kind of method of science is just silly. Science unlike philosophy has no need for such ""principles"" because it has a far more effective method to determine if an entity of an explanation is unnecessary.  

 There are those that claim the Ockham's razor is not so much used by science as a whole but is used by individual scientists in the course of concocting scientific explanations. However yet again this is irrelevant since it matters not how one comes up with the explanation, be it dreams, luck, brute force, persistence or whatever. In the end what matters is how well the concocted explanations do at describing and revealing reality. To give Ockham's razor some sort of special place is nonsense. Serendipity is far more important. Also until the experiment is done an honest person has no idea if they have multiplied entities beyond necessity. Until the actual observations and experiments are done Ockham's is nothing more than a cover for the biases of what is considered unnecessary by a given scientist.  

 "