WHEN IS PARSIMONY A VIRTUE?
Abstract
Parsimony is a virtue of empirical theories. Is it also a virtue of philosophical theories? I review four contemporary accounts of the virtue of parsimony in empirical theorizing, and consider how each might apply to two prominent appeals to parsimony in the philosophical literature, those made on behalf of physicalism and on behalf of nominalism. None of the accounts of the virtue of parsimony extends naturally to either of these philosophical cases. This suggests that in typical philosophical contexts, ontological simplicity has no evidential value.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Principles of ontological parsimony are controversial.
“Such principles are controversial (Huemer 2009; Sober 2009; Kriegel 2013: 18 ff.; Metcalf 2016)”
From The nomological argument for the existence of God (2022) · cites this paper as Huemer 2009
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The nomological argument for the existence of God
Hildebrand, T., & Metcalf, T. (2022) · Noûs · doi:10.1111/nous.12364 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
- Authors
- Huemer, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Colorado Boulder (US)
- Corresponding author
- Huemer, Michael
- ORCID
- Huemer, Michael
- Venue
- The Philosophical Quarterly
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2009-04
- Volume
- 59
- Issue
- 235
- Pages
- 216-236
- ISSN
- 0031-8094 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9213
- OpenAlex
- W2076676501
- Cited by
- 155
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 20 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 12.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Philosophical Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy, Science, and History
- Keywords
- parsimony, physicalism, nominalism, empirical theories, evidentiary value, philosophy of science, metaphysics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
