Russell's Simplicity Argument
This essay will consider Russell’s reasons for believing that there exists a real world. The philosopher offers a few arguments and the three most important ones will be outlined, namely, the relativity argument, the argument for instinctive beliefs and the argument for simplicity. The essay will argue that Russell’s simplicity argument is effective because it stands against criticism. In fact, the critical discussion will be mainly focused on the simplicity argument since it provides more room for debate. Therefore, after an outline of all the arguments, this essay will aim to a narrow focus and explain only briefly why the first two arguments are evidently unsound.
For the sake of clarity, to explain Russel’s arguments, it may be useful …show more content…
The philosopher considers the common-sense hypothesis of the world existing, which I will indicate with the letter “A” because of concision, and the sceptical hypothesis denying the existence of the world, which I will indicate with the letter “B” from now on. Thus, Russell claims that although B is logically possible, “there is no reason whatever to suppose that it is true; and it is, in fact, a less simple hypothesis”. To explain Russell’s argument, the conclusion that it is rational to believe that the external world exists follows from the premises that simplicity is a reason for believing in A, whereas there is not a reason to believe in B, although this latter may still be a conceivable possibility. This standpoint was also endorsed by a number of other intellectuals, specifically, the similar “Occam’s Razor” (Baker, 2011: ?) hold that if one theory is simpler than another, then it is rational to believe in it. Furthermore, the philosopher Douven pointed out that A and B “are not equally good explanations” (Douven, 2017: ?) because A is simpler than B. In other words, Russell is reasoning by abduction, which means making an inference to the best explanation, according to which, A is a better explanation than B because it uniquely has the feature of simplicity. Moreover, Russell employs the case of the cat’s hunger to exemplify his theory: the simpler explanation for the cat to be hungry is that the cat physically exists rather than being only a set of
For the sake of clarity, to explain Russel’s arguments, it may be useful …show more content…
The philosopher considers the common-sense hypothesis of the world existing, which I will indicate with the letter “A” because of concision, and the sceptical hypothesis denying the existence of the world, which I will indicate with the letter “B” from now on. Thus, Russell claims that although B is logically possible, “there is no reason whatever to suppose that it is true; and it is, in fact, a less simple hypothesis”. To explain Russell’s argument, the conclusion that it is rational to believe that the external world exists follows from the premises that simplicity is a reason for believing in A, whereas there is not a reason to believe in B, although this latter may still be a conceivable possibility. This standpoint was also endorsed by a number of other intellectuals, specifically, the similar “Occam’s Razor” (Baker, 2011: ?) hold that if one theory is simpler than another, then it is rational to believe in it. Furthermore, the philosopher Douven pointed out that A and B “are not equally good explanations” (Douven, 2017: ?) because A is simpler than B. In other words, Russell is reasoning by abduction, which means making an inference to the best explanation, according to which, A is a better explanation than B because it uniquely has the feature of simplicity. Moreover, Russell employs the case of the cat’s hunger to exemplify his theory: the simpler explanation for the cat to be hungry is that the cat physically exists rather than being only a set of