In Furtherance of and / or a Variation of Occam's Razor and / or Nothing at All: Part 2.) - David A. Lerner's Razor.

David A. Lerner: OK, fair enough, I say. Makes sense. I'll quote from the below, "His principle states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected." So, clearly this is predicated on the fact that there are competing hypotheses, each containing assumptions, and that the one that should be selected is the hypothesis containing the fewest assumptions. Got it.

Let me also take the second entry from Wikipedia as the first one seems to have a lot of "words" and stuff like "ad hoc" and "falsifiability" and "scientific method" and "testable" and let me dispense with all that jargon.

If my memory serves me correctly, I believe I first heard the phrase "KISS" from a chemistry teacher I had at Miami Palmetto Sr. High School. Whenever the class was frustrated with a problem or stuck on some solution, the teacher would say to the (co-ed) class to "KISS: Keep it Simple, Stupid." That stuck with me. Maybe it was because it was high school and it became indelibly imprinted in my mind as my face tried not to turn red as I maybe had a "crush" on a girl sitting near me in the class. Either way, I've always remembered it and have had to remind myself of this on a near daily basis, I feel.

So, basically we're looking at something like "if there are two competing explanations for an occurrence, the simplest one is usually correct" and also "among competing choices or hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions is usually correct."

Alrighty. So, what if we just didn't make any assumptions at all? Period.

Would that then in any way, shape, or form change Occam's Razor or would this fall under the category of the subject of my post "Nothing at All?"

I think I know and have a few ideas, based on the laws of logic and things of that "nature." Do you know what I mean, jelly bean? Or no? Or is it "Nothing at All." A distinct possibility. Does it mean you're not going to be "wrong" as long as you don't assume? Or no? Does it mean that you will, in fact, be "right" if you don't assume, unlike Sir Occam who said the selection with the fewest number of assumptions is usually correct, so can we then say if there are No Assumptions, then the selection will, in fact, be correct? Or No? I think I know. Or maybe I know. Or maybe I know it might be "Nothing at All." Do you? 

On a side note, I also like to think that I live in a world that is based on facts that are actually verifiable. But hey, that's just me. Unquote. You do you.  - David A. Lerner