Here&#x27;s an argument that runs completely parallel:<p>jwmerrill&#x27;s razor: points in the plane should be considered to be close to the origin unless there is evidence otherwise.<p>Is this a reasonable law? As reasonable as Occam&#x27;s razor? I think probably not, but I don&#x27;t have a strong opinion. One interesting thing to note is that the law doesn&#x27;t say where the origin is (similarly, Occam&#x27;s razor is vague about what exactly is meant by &quot;simple&quot; and &quot;complex&quot;).<p>Finite asymptotic form: for any finite point set, there is a distance D such that no point in the set is further from the origin than D.<p>Continuous asymptotic form: given any function from points in the plane to non-negative numbers which has a finite integral, there is a distance D such that the integral of the function over the region that is further from the origin than D is less than any epsilon_1, and such that the function is everywhere less than any epsilon_2 on this region except perhaps on a set of measure 0.<p>The asymptotic forms are provable mathematical statements, but I think it would be a mistake to say that either of them is a very compelling argument for the original statement of &quot;jwmerrill&#x27;s razor.&quot;<p>Without intending to call you out in particular (I don&#x27;t know what opinions you hold), I think people sometimes accept some odd logic in probability theory that they would be less likely to accept in other contexts. Bayesian probability theory provides practical solutions to a lot of interesting problems, and I personally wish people would emphasize those cases more, and make fewer sweeping statements about it being a consistent theory of all of the scientific method.