Does Occam's Razor Apply to the JFK Assassination?

[Jon G. Tidd]

American political and military history is rich with conspiracies. That fact does not justify belief in any one conspiracy theory, but it does suggest the notion of a conspiracy to kill JFK is not per se farfetched.

I concede it's easy to concoct conspiracy theories about the assassination. Easy because JFK made numerous and diverse enemies at home and abroad. Easy because the U.S. Government has done such a poor job of explaining the assassination. Inviting false trails are everywhere. There are so many bad guys to consider. So many distractions.

Conspiracies are man-made. They aren't part of the natural order. There is no governing principle to a conspiracy as there is, say, to the motion of the planets around the sun. Conspiracies are sui generis.

Conspiracies may be simple -- for example, two individuals agree to rob a convenience store and take a step in furtherance of their agreement, such as buying a gun; this agreement and the step in furtherance consitute the crime of conspiracy. Or the conspiracy may be complex. For example, four individuals agree a certain political figure should be killed. These individuals want [a] to have the political figure killed, to make the killing appear to be the act of just one, crazed individual, and [c] to escape detection for responsibility of the killing.

Occam's Razor -- the preference for the least assumptions to explain an occurrence -- does not apply to conspiracies. Occam's Razor applies when an explanation is sought of an event not controlled by humans. An event such as planetary motion. For events controlled entirely by humans, there is no governing principle.

[Ron Ecker]

Occam's Razor -- the preference for the least assumptions to explain an occurrence -- does not apply to conspiracies. Occam's Razor applies when an explanation is sought of an event not controlled by humans. An event such as planetary motion. For events controlled entirely by humans, there is no governing principle.

Perhaps not governing principles but there are at least three prerequisites for a conspiracy like the JFK assassination. A corrupt government, a coopted media,and a gullible population.

[Greg Burnham]

The application of Occam's Razor is appropriate to any scenario proffered to be the "most likely" explanation. Its application is not necessarily inappropriate to the discussion of conspiracies or to other "events controlled by humans" as you have claimed.

Let me extrapolate:

I think you would agree that an explanation that truly accounts for all of the available evidence is preferable to an explanation that fails to account for all of the available evidence. If an explanation is too simple it may fail to explain an adequate amount of the evidence and be rejected on those grounds.

So Occam's Razor does not suggest that "simple is always better" -- Rather it suggests that "The simplest explanation (least assumptions) that is adequate to the evidence is preferable to a complex explanation that contains more assumptions than are required to satisfy the evidence."

So in the case of conspiracy investigations the principle still applies. After all, if we suspend Occam's Razor, allowing "more assumptions than necessary to explain the evidence" we could conclude that the reason the trajectory of the back wound's entrance appears to be at 45 to 60 degrees is because a sniper in a helicopter fired the shot.

That is certainly an explanation that would account for the evidence of a 45 to 60 degree trajectory--and it would support a conspiracy scenario--but it is terribly complex. By applying Occam's Razor to this conspiracy theory we see that--notwithstanding the fact that this "event is entirely controlled by humans" and it adequately accounts for the evidence--still the explanation adds too many assumptions. It violates Occam's Razor. The explanation--even of a conspiracy--should be adequate to all of the evidence without adding more than what is necessary.

[Glenn Nall]

"...easy to concoct conspiracy theories about the assassination ... because JFK made numerous and diverse enemies..."

It is my humble opinion that anyone who has concocted a theory of murderous conspiracy based on something like the victim's behaviors and popularity is likely in the wrong forum and would be more at home in one catering to the grand imaginatives and other paranoiacs. I did not devise an idea of conspiracy for myself, I fell into it once enough circumstantial evidence led me to it (which admittedly didn't take that long).

I know that is not exactly what you meant with that wording, but it seemed to me apropos in defining the reasonable Conspiracists from the rest, so I wanted to say that. For anyone who is making an effort to believe a conspiracy occurred, (much like atheists make the effort to NOT believe), I'd say they just haven't read enough yet. It's the Lone Nutters who seem to be straining against the evidence, it seems to me.

"Occam's Razor -- the preference for the least assumptions to explain an occurrence -- does not apply to conspiracies. Occam's Razor applies when an explanation is sought of an event not controlled by humans. An event such as planetary motion. For events controlled entirely by humans, there is no governing principle."

I'm not sure what that means. I think Occam's Razor does apply in my attempts to reach a conclusion in regards to the conspiracy - in my attempt to "solve it" for myself. I think people tend to use way too many assumptions in this conundrum as well as every day ones. These really seem to muddy the waters, I think. When a detective states that the person who most benefits from a crime is most likely going to be the perpetrator, isn't that an example of Occam's Razor, in a way - not reading too much into the details?

It seems to work for me here. The Russian's and Castro certainly did NOT benefit from it - the anti-castro group didn't so much - the Mafia did, somewhat, by the end of the decade; Hoover and the FBI and the CIA most assuredly did - and LBJ did more than anyone, I think (relatively) - staying out of prison and becoming POTUS, in relative terms, is about as positive an outcome as any one entity could acquire.

Maybe that's not O.R. - I just think people read too much into details. With all of the theories floating around, there'd be thousands of people IN ON the conspiracy if half held water.

What's funny is, when I first got hooked into this thing 30+ years ago, the talk was Cuba and The Bay Of Pigs, then that became "blase", ridiculous (at least to my recollection), and the talk was all about Carlos Marcello (one of my first books was Mafia Kingpin) and then the CIA - and then Viet Nam... and lo and behold, it's circled back around and the "talk" is - All Of The Above, and throw in JEH and JBJ.

Greg - my thoughts exactly.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Occam's Razor does not apply to conspiracies. Take for example the movie "Reservoir Dogs", which is about five guys who conspire to commit armed robbery. The preparation is clean and clear. But the robbery goes wrong. The conspirators re-convene after the robbery to find out what went wrong. What went wrong is complicated. What went wrong would not be part of a criminal complaint. A criminal complaint would be clean and simple. There is nothing clean and simple about "Reservoir Dogs". Occam's Razor doesn't apply.

[Greg Burnham]

Jon,

I fail to believe that you cannot grasp this concept.

Your interpretation of Occam's Razor is flawed.

Occam's Razor does not require simplicity for its own sake.

Rather, Occam's Razor rejects the addition of complexity beyond that which is necessary to satisfy all of the evidence.

If a complex explanation is required to account for all of the available evidence then such an explanation is NOT "too complex."

Provided the complexity of the explanation is limited to what is required to satisfy the evidence--and no more--it does not violate Occam's Razor.

=================

As for "Reservoir Dogs" -- Of course "What went wrong?" (as in: "Why did it fail?") would not be relevant to the prosecution's case.

However, "planned and attempted criminal activity, complex or otherwise" could be part of the complaint (even if the plan's execution failed for whatever reasons).

Edited June 6, 2015 by Greg Burnham

[Jon G. Tidd]

In the early afternoon of Sunday, three crimes were committed in Pleasant City. The first in order of time was the malicious destruction of a fire hydrant, which required multiple police and fire units to handle. Andy Able was arrested for and subsequently convicted by a jury of this crime.

The second in order of time was a malicious fire started in a federal building a mile away from the fire hydrant. Ben Bradley was arrested for this crime, but a jury found him innocent. So this crime remains unsolved, even though it was thoroughly investigated and required the attention of many police and fire professionals.

The third in order of time was a very quick and efficient bank robbery on the other side of Pleasant City. Three unknown individuals robbed the bank. killed a bank employee, and got away clean. The individuals who perpetrated this crime have never been identified.

These are the pertinent facts, all of them.

Occam's Razor says we look at these three crimes, look at all the facts, and don't introduce complexity that is not needed to account for the facts. So, there were three separate crimes, committed by three separate parties. Two of the crimes remain unsolved. Case closed, as Gerald Posner would say.

Is this what you're getting at, Greg Burnham?

[Greg Burnham]

Jon,

I retract my earlier statement in its entirety.

I absolutely believe that you are incapable of grasping this concept or you are going out of your way to make it appear so. Either way, I have had enough of it.

[Jon G. Tidd]

There is no one definition of Occam's Razor. Bertrand Russell defines it one way, for example. Mathematicians another way. Medical diagnosticians another way. Isaac Newton yet another way, and so on.

All of these definitions, every one, pertains to either pure mathematics or natural phenomena.

In the study of probability theory or natural occurrences, the least number of necessary assumptions (called parsimony) is the most favored. The least number of necessary assumptions may be complex in some sense but simplest ultimately.

Occam's Razor does not apply to the JFK case for one simple reason. One cannot grasp all the facts of the assassination. Essential facts are unknown, perhaps hidden. Without knowledge of these facts, one cannot formulate an explanation -- any explanation, simple or complex, exhibiting elegance or mere parsimony -- of the assassination. Why? Because the JFK case is not a pure math problem or a natural phenomenon. It is an event comprised of unknown players and unknown motivations. Occam's Razor, in its many formulations, never has been aimed at such a situation.

[Greg Burnham]

The appropriate application of Occam's Razor is mandatory whenever an explanation, which is alleged to be the "best" solution, is offered. If it were employed more frequently in the JFK case, the number of wildly ambitious theories would no doubt be greatly reduced. Moreover, the Single Bullet Theory would be dumped as a violation of the principle all by itself.

It is interesting to note that only IF we assume Oswald's guilt as the lone assassin does the Single Bullet Theory conform to Occam's Razor. However, if the restriction to only allow evidence that conforms to the predetermined conclusion of his guilt is removed, then the Single Bullet Theory becomes an example of one of the most egregious violations of Occam's Razor. If Oswald is "forced to be the lone assassin" in the investigation then an inordinate number of assumptions must be introduced in order to account for all of the evidence. Indeed, it becomes so outrageous that it has earned the moniker, Magic Bullet Theory.