The Invalidity Of Occam's Razor

When faced with events or truths for which there are multiple philosophical possibilities that could be behind them, some people think that a principle called Occam's razor can be rationally accepted.  This "razor" entails that smaller assumptions will be made instead of larger assumptions when approaching certain concepts.  The obvious flaw is that, small or large, assumptions are still made, and assumptions exclude proof and knowledge.  No one knows something based on an assumption.  Thus, there is never a time when it is necessary to think about Occam's razor except to understand its faults and communicate them with others.  Otherwise, one could understand rational epistemology without ever considering the invalid idea of the razor or giving it a moment of thought.

Occam's razor is nothing but a fallacious construct meant to shield select assumptions from criticism.  It is not that minimal assumptions are ideal, but that all assumptions are contrary to reason because they leap beyond what is logically provable, even if only to a slight extent in some cases.  Not only are all assumptions inherently fallacious and therefore irrational, but they are also arbitrary in that every person who defends some assumptions while rejecting or ridiculing others has.  The only basis for regarding any particular assumption as "necessary" or "rational" is preferring it to a different assumption or feeling subjectively persuaded that something is true even if it has not or cannot be proven.

The flaws of Occam's razor extend further than a favorable stance on making assumptions, though.  Those who believe the razor is a valid epistemological idea go so far as to outright assume that simpler possibilities are more likely and thus assuming they are correct or probable is justifiable.  Truth is not always simple or complex.  There are truths which are so simple that one cannot break them down any further (like the self-evidence of logical axioms), and there are truths that are so abstract that almost no one at all would ever discover them unless someone else explained them (such as the only way to prove that one is not dreaming [1]).  For both categories, there are simpler and more complex aspects or ramifications to each important logical truth.

Occam's razor is yet another example of a concept that no one would have to specifically contemplate or address if it wasn't a somewhat popular idea proposed by others.  Anyone who thinks rationally about philosophical matters--in other words, about almost anything at all, for everything is philosophical and in many cases this is explicitly clear to those who ponder it--will see that assumptions have no epistemological value and that it is impossible for them to ever be rational, for by nature to assume is to believe where reason has not been consulted or where there is no proof.  It does not matter if the assumptions are few in number or relatively minor.  Such assumptions deviate from reason less than grander assumptions, yes; they are inherently fallacious all the same.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/dreams-and-consciousness.html