45 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
45 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
description: Find simplest explanation that fits all the facts
|
|
argument-hint: [situation or leave blank for current context]
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
<objective>
|
|
Apply Occam's Razor to $ARGUMENTS (or the current discussion if no arguments provided).
|
|
|
|
Among competing explanations, prefer the one with fewest assumptions. Simplest ≠ easiest; simplest = fewest moving parts.
|
|
</objective>
|
|
|
|
<process>
|
|
1. List all possible explanations or approaches
|
|
2. For each, count the assumptions required
|
|
3. Identify which assumptions are actually supported by evidence
|
|
4. Eliminate explanations requiring unsupported assumptions
|
|
5. Select the simplest that still explains all observed facts
|
|
</process>
|
|
|
|
<output_format>
|
|
**Candidate Explanations:**
|
|
1. [Explanation]: Requires assumptions [A, B, C]
|
|
2. [Explanation]: Requires assumptions [D, E]
|
|
3. [Explanation]: Requires assumptions [F]
|
|
|
|
**Evidence Check:**
|
|
- Assumption A: [supported/unsupported]
|
|
- Assumption B: [supported/unsupported]
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
**Simplest Valid Explanation:**
|
|
[The one with fewest unsupported assumptions]
|
|
|
|
**Why This Wins:**
|
|
[What it explains without extra machinery]
|
|
</output_format>
|
|
|
|
<success_criteria>
|
|
- Enumerates all plausible explanations
|
|
- Makes assumptions explicit and countable
|
|
- Distinguishes supported from unsupported assumptions
|
|
- Doesn't oversimplify (must fit ALL facts)
|
|
- Reduces complexity without losing explanatory power
|
|
</success_criteria>
|