Well, this is getting a bit longer than I wanted for an off-topic thread, but...  Prove it.  OK, I&#x27;ll see what I can do to change your mind.  :)<p><i>There is no scientific basis for Occam&#x27;s razor. It&#x27;s just a rule of thumb</i><p>YES<p><i>Feel free to use it for ordering possible explanations by complexity</i><p>YES<p><i>but don&#x27;t mistake it for a scientific tool, because it isn&#x27;t.</i><p>Wrong.  As was stated by colordrops above, it&#x27;s a heuristic technique.  As you said, it&#x27;s useful for ordering levels of complexity.  Where you and he <i>may</i> disagree with me is that such a tool is an excellent tool for pursuing investigations.<p>This is where my choice of the word &quot;profitable&quot; comes into play.  Someone is figuring out some mystery and has hypotheses X and Y.  For Occam&#x27;s Razor to apply, X and Y have to have equal predictive performance, but Y is more grandiose.  As such, X is more likely, per Occam&#x27;s Razor.  Pursuing X will either result in X being proven correct (at least until new contradictory information arises later), or quickly pivoting to Y (or in the worst-case scenario, new hypothesis Z).  This course of action results in the least amount of time and resources wasted.  It is by definition more profitable.  You could choose to investigate Y first, but being more grandiose, it will be much more difficult to test Y.  If Y turns out to be wrong, you will have wasted much more time and resources.  If someone chooses Y first, it&#x27;s because X and Y are NOT equal, and Occam&#x27;s Razor then would not be relevant.<p>This guy gives a much better explanation of Occam&#x27;s Razor than I ever could:  <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.quora.com&#x2F;Why-is-Occams-Razor-true" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.quora.com&#x2F;Why-is-Occams-Razor-true</a><p><i>Most changes in accepted theories are not because Occam&#x27;s razor picked them - but because data falsified the preceding theory that Occam&#x27;s razor picked for a newer one - turning the old one into merely a useful model - and eliminating it from discussion (falsified).</i><p>Seriously, why would anyone jump to investigate a more complicated hypothesis when there&#x27;s a simpler hypothesis to investigate, and both hypotheses have equal explanation performance and supporting evidence?  It is far less expensive to investigate the simpler hypothesis first.  It certainly is not acceptable to be dismissive of the simpler hypothesis.<p>At the time of my original comment, there was almost no information in the thread.  There certainly was zero information in the OP article.  Given multiple possible explanations, I could not see any reason why the article jumped to the foreign nation state explanation.  Imagine what that would have involved:<p>- hacking their engineering team to remotely modify the code<p>- infiltrating their engineering team with a mole to modify the code<p>Both of these are big conspiracy theories.  With no additional information, what is more likely?  That or:<p>- crap, that guy that left the company in a huff really hated us and had to screw us one last time<p>- whoops, our engineering team accidentally screwed up bad<p>Since when is jumping to conspiracy theories without good reasons an acceptable pattern of logic?<p>edit:  formatting