Occam’s Razor is one of those ideas that slipped out of philosophy and wandered into popular culture, shedding its actual meaning along the way. Ironically, the very process that made it famous – simplifying it for wider distribution – also hollowed it out. It’s journey towards accessibility stripped away nuance leaving something simple, catchy, and completely unmoored from the principle it represents. What survives is not a tool of reasoning but a slogan. A distortion of how the world works masquerading as wisdom: the comforting belief that truth sits on the surface, that the simplest explanation deserves our loyalty, that complexity is inherently suspicious. The Razor has been simplified past the point of usefulness. What should help us determine the more likely scenario has become a signpost pointing towards the improbable.
The real principle, the one William of Ockham actually intended, is more modest in scope: when two explanations account for the same evidence, prefer the one that relies on fewer unlikely assumptions. That’s it. It’s a bookkeeping rule, not a metaphysical claim. It tells you nothing about whether the world is simple or whether simple explanations are somehow closer to truth. On its journey from monastery to meme, this epistemic scalpel bloated into a bludgeon against inconvenient depth by well-intentioned simplifiers. Simplicity became dogma, complexity denounced as heresy.
Dragged into discussions about political events, intelligence failures, assassinations, coups, or institutional misconduct, this evolution of Occam’s Razor turns into a cudgel used to beat back any explanation that dares to illustrate the real structure of human behavior. The public version of the Razor demands that messy events get tidied up, that human motives be singular, that multiple actors cannot possibly coordinate without immediately collapsing into farce. If something contains layers or contradictions or unexplained fragments, it must be false. Truth, apparently, is razor thin and linear.
But nothing in human affairs is linear. The Razor was designed for the closed world of competing scientific models, not the open jungle of state power, security bureaucracies, political incentives, and institutional survival instincts. And yet we routinely apply it to situations where the evidence available to the public is asymmetrical, filtered, or deliberately withheld. We pretend to compare “simple” and “complex” explanations as if they were built from the same raw materials, when in fact one of them is built from fragments and the other from official press memos. It is an illusion of parity.
The caricature of a “conspiracy theory” that Occam’s Razor supposedly dismantles is almost always the same: a group of people, perfectly coordinated, pre-planning every step of history like a bank heist. This version deserves mocking. It requires too many improbable assumptions, too much foresight, too much competence, too much unity of purpose. Shave it away. It collapses under its own theatricality.
But real conspiracies, the ones that fill the documented record of modern governance, are nothing like that. They are not designed. They accrue. They emerge from half-truths, guarded conversations, unshared reports, shifted incentives, truncated investigations, and quiet understandings between people who suddenly discover that their interests overlap. They do not begin in smoke-filled rooms; they begin when someone realizes it’s safer to hide a detail than to disclose it. Then someone else discovers that their own safety now depends on protecting the person who hid it. Coordination does not need to be planned when self-preservation does the job automatically.
Watergate wasn’t a heist-film plot; it was improvisation layered on top of panic. Iran-Contra wasn’t a master plan; it was a string of ad hoc decisions stitched together after the fact. MK-ULTRA, COINTELPRO, the CIA renditions program, the Afghanistan Papers, the Sackler opioid fraud were not choreographed. They were bureaucratic organisms drifting toward certain outcomes, driven by incentives rather than blueprints. The complexity wasn’t the conspiracy, the complexity was the institution.
And yet, when these things are discussed publicly, Occam’s Razor is invoked as if it applies cleanly. As if the truth should be simple, and if it isn’t, the simplicity of the official story should carry the day. But official stories are not simple because reality is simple; they are simple because complexity has been filtered out. Investigators often work with pre-curated evidence. Key witnesses are unreachable. Access is limited. Documents arrive redacted. Questions are framed in advance. Mandates are narrow. Agencies protect themselves. Politicians protect optics. And once the report is drafted, simplicity is not a reflection of truth but a reflection of how much has been removed.
And this dynamic is visible in our own moment. Take the assassination of Charlie Kirk: the official timeline, the weapon mechanics, the sequence of movements, the shifting FBI statements; the pieces sit uneasily together, as if trimmed to fit a pre-shaped outline. Or take 9/11, where the initial, highly compressed narrative of “a handful of cave-dwelling jihadists” executing a flawless, multi-pronged operation became the dominant frame before much of the forensic and structural analysis had even begun. In both cases, the public is presented with a version of events that feels linear not because the events themselves were linear, but because the machinery of crisis response, national security, and political communication produces linearity as a byproduct. The simplicity of these accounts is not the simplicity of reality; it is the simplicity of an event passed through filters that include security restrictions, classified evidence, reputational incentives, bureaucratic shielding, and the pressures that accompany large-scale public trauma.
This is why leaks and whistleblowers always sound fragmented. They do not see the entire picture; they see the corners of one. They see the redacted portions, the locked rooms, the restricted files, the inexplicable decisions taken above their pay grade. Their testimony is jagged precisely because the conspiracy, if we must keep using that word, is not planned. It is assembled piecemeal by people who are often improvising without full knowledge of what others are doing.
Occam’s Razor assumes equal access to the same evidence. It assumes transparency, independence, and open inquiry. But political reality is built on managed access, selective disclosure, and institutional self-interest. In such an environment, the Razor does not cut away implausibility; it cuts away the parts of the story we are not permitted to see. It rewards the version that has already been simplified for us and penalizes the version that attempts to account for the missing pieces.
The tragedy is that a principle meant to minimize unnecessary assumptions has been hijacked to fly past relevant albeit abstruse evidence. It is asinine to assume that power behaves innocently, that institutions reveal more than they conceal, that the official version of events should win by virtue of its minimalism or tidiness. Complexity, as much as we may want to avoid it, is everywhere.
If there is a correction to be made, it is this: Occam’s Razor is a tool of parsimony, not a doctrine of truth. It cannot tell us how reality operates. It cannot adjudicate events shaped by secrecy. It cannot slice through layers of curated complexity and declare the simplest remaining story to be the most probable. The world does not owe us simplicity. And when we demand it, when we treat neatness as a filter for evidence, we end up confirming the bias. If there is a razor to be used here, it is not the one that cuts away complexity. It is the one that cuts away naiveté.
And if any single case exposes just how flimsy the popular version of Occam’s Razor really is, it’s the story of Ahmad al-Sharaa aka Abu Muhammad al-Jawlani. It is an example that would leave the bloated, sloganized Razor blunted on the cutting board. A man once carrying a ten-million-dollar U.S. bounty walks into the White House as a diplomatic guest to be sprayed by the President of the United States with cologne and praised as a partner. The folk-Razor cannot filet this meaty morsel. It cannot compute the shift. It cannot model the turn. It collapses under the weight of an event that violates its purported one-dimensional logic of “simple explanations.”
But, once again, the world is not simple. And the Jawlani episode is not an exception; it is a glimpse of the rule. The naive interpretation is that this must have been planned all along: the United States created the Taliban, the CIA funded ISIS, therefore everything unfolds according to a hidden script. But this, too, is a misunderstanding; the mirror image of the Razor’s simplification, just in a darker costume. The truth is not that this is how real power behaves: through emergent negotiation, shifting alliances, and people reassessing their bets at every turn. No blueprint. No omniscient director. Just overlapping interests and the instinct for advantage.
Jawlani’s transformation from wanted man to welcomed guest is not a conspiracy. It is a case study in realpolitik stripped of its pretenses. A demonstration of how quickly today’s irreconcilable enemy becomes tomorrow’s conditional ally once incentives rotate and geopolitical context mutates. It is not the illuminati Order revealing itself; it is Contingency wearing a tie.
This is the world Occam’s Razor cannot parse. Not because the Razor is wrong, but because we have misused it so badly that it blinds rather than reveals. If we are going to dissect events like this, we need a different instrument entirely, one that can fillet open these frankensteins, not slice away their complexity. It needs to allow us to examine the connective tissue of incentives, opportunities, blind spots, miscalculations, and shifting interests. A razor suited not for parsimony, but for reality.
SEÑOR - The Blog 