Simplicity Meets Scrutiny

When I was 16, I set off for a riding lesson, car keys in hand and $3 from my dad for gas stuck in my pocket. Before I left, he reminded me to stop for gas on the way to the barn. “Of course,” I replied confidently. Our family’s second car — an old Oldsmobile Delta 88 in a color called “Pistachio Nut,” which had once belonged to my grandmother — was ready for the drive. We nicknamed the car “Greenie,” and I was certain Greenie had enough gas to get to the barn. After all, as a teenager who thought I knew everything, I figured the gas stop could wait until the drive home.

The riding lesson went great, but things took a bad turn when I climbed back into Greenie to head home. I turned the key, expecting the engine to start, but all I got was a click. I tried again. Click. And again. Click. My mind raced with all the things that could be wrong. Maybe it was the starter, the alternator, or the battery. Greenie was old, so it seemed logical to assume some part had given out or the battery was dead.

I walked back to the pay phone at the barn (yes, this was back when pay phones were a thing) and called my dad. I rattled off my list of possible mechanical failures. He listened patiently and then, with the calm only a seasoned parent can muster, asked, “Did you get gas?”

My teenage confidence flared. “No, but I’m sure it’s not out of gas,” I replied. Obviously, the problem with Greenie had to be more complicated than that. But when Dad showed up and poured some gas into the tank, Greenie started right up, no problem. Looking back, I wish I’d known about Occam’s razor, a principle that could have saved me a lot of embarrassment.

The Razor’s Edge

Occam’s razor is a principle that favors simplicity in problem-solving. Named after William of Ockham, a 14th-century English friar and philosopher, it emphasizes straightforward reasoning. The idea is that when faced with multiple explanations, the simplest one — requiring the fewest assumptions — is usually the right one. The term “razor” refers to cutting away unnecessary assumptions to get to the essential explanation

In my case, Occam’s razor would have pointed straight to the simplest explanation: I had run out of gas. Instead of imagining complicated theories about broken car parts, the obvious answer was right there.

Horses Not Zebras

Doctors today often rely on Occam’s razor to avoid jumping to exotic, unlikely diagnoses when simpler explanations are more likely. Medical students even have a saying to drive the point home: “When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.” In other words, if a patient comes in with a fever and a cough, a doctor will first consider common causes like the flu or a respiratory infection before suspecting a rare disease.

But the value of Occam’s razor in medicine goes beyond making diagnoses; it also prevents doctors from over-testing patients. Running a battery of expensive and invasive tests to rule out every unlikely scenario isn’t just inefficient and costly — it can also expose patients to unnecessary risks and stress. By focusing on the most plausible explanations, doctors can streamline treatment, limit testing to what’s truly needed, and improve outcomes for their patients. Yet they must also remain vigilant because sometimes the zebras — the rare conditions— do turn up.

Cutting to the Truth

Occam’s razor doesn’t guarantee the correct answer, but it’s a useful starting point. That’s where science steps in as the ultimate truth-tester. Science doesn’t care if an explanation is simple or elegant; it demands rigorous evidence to prove it true or false. Even when a simple answer seems obvious, it must stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Take chronic diseases, for example. It’s tempting to pin them on one factor—like a poor diet, lack of exercise, or genetics. But the reality is far more tangled. Heart disease, diabetes, and autoimmune disorders typically arise from a complex web of factors: genetics, environmental exposures, lifestyle habits, stress, and access to quality healthcare. Oversimplifying these conditions can be dangerous.

Consider Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s “Make America Healthy Again” vision if confirmed as Secretary of Health and Human Services. His ideas may sound appealing and straightforward, but critics argue they overlook the complex nature of chronic diseases and public health, and at times, veer into conspiracy theories. Effective public health strategies require comprehensive solutions based on rigorous science, not oversimplified approaches that ignore the nuances of reality.

Sometimes the simplest answer is the right one — like my empty gas tank when I was sure Greenie’s problem had to be mechanical. But in medicine and public health, we need to dig deeper. Science keeps us grounded, reminding us to test, question, and embrace complexity when the evidence demands it.

Happy reading,

Enjoy the weekend!

Best,
Suzanne
Suzanne Daniels, Ph.D.
AEPC President
P.O. Box 1416
Birmingham, MI 48012
Office: (248) 792-2187
Email: [email protected]

News you can trust