You don't need to go through all the turns of the theory to demonstrate it's not Occam's razor.

Occam's Razor has nothing to do with a theory, it has to do with deciding between theories; i.e. it is a process. A theory can't be "not Occam's Razor." The phrase doesn't even make any sense.

Setting up a ridiculously over complicated theory is simply not Occam's razor.

Let me try a different approach.

Let's try a hypothetical.

Let's suppose that you have specific knowledge of the media. You believe that the media is run by Big Brother, and you believe that the media creates fake news stories every day by employing crisis actors. In this hypothetical world these things aren't hidden from anyone, but are common knowledge. Not only do you know that such staged events happen daily, but everyone knows it. In such a scenario, saying "this was a staged event" would be "the least complex theory" purely through the context of other knowledge.

In this scenario, is this truly the "least complex theory," or does it just have numerous hidden assumptions based on the context of prior information? Like, we still would have to assume that the people involved were crisis actors. We would have to assume they weren't reacting organically, but according to a script. We would have to assume some nebulous hidden string puller wrote that script. But in the context of such staged acts on the news being "common knowledge" we wouldn't even recognize that as an assumption, because "everyone knows all the people on tv are crisis actors."

This is, in my experience, the most common application of "Occam's Razor" and it is a completely fallacious application. The hidden assumptions are everywhere, yet shoved under the rug of "common experience" without even realizing we are doing it. That is exactly how you seem to be approaching your "this is an overly complex theory" statement, and rightly so. You are recognizing all of the hidden assumptions because those assumptions aren't common knowledge and, likely, you disagree with them.

But what about someone who has spent years researching the media, and intelligence agencies, etc.? What about someone who has seen how often these events have occurred? For such a person, assuming they had found such events to be commonplace with legitimate and undeniable evidence, those hidden assumptions would creep in and influence their "least complex theory."

For those on the other side, where the belief is that these events are far more often organic than contrived, "common knowledge" would hide a completely different set of assumptions. In this scenario, a person would know about at least one time where an event on the news was staged (say, Jessie Smollett), but would assume that most of the news is organically derived. The assumptions there would be that the people involved aren't crisis actors, the people are acting organically, not reading from a script, and there is no hidden string puller writing such a script. They wouldn't even think of these things as assumptions, On the contrary, "everyone knows these things are true (except the crazy conspiracy theorists) and they don't even need to be considered as assumptions". Regardless of the truth of anyone's beliefs, both sides would be doing the same thing, but in the opposite way, thus coming to completely opposite conclusions on what the "most complex theory" is, because they have a completely different set of hidden assumptions and a completely different rug of "common knowledge" to sweep them under.

This is why "Occam's Razor" is a completely misunderstood and abused tool. I suggest it only applies rationally in the method I have employed it, from an information theoretic perspective, where one is trying to find the "least complicated theory" according to the strictures of that discipline. Any other application will be (and I believe always is) absolutely fraught with hidden assumptions that hide under the guise of "common knowledge."

This is also one reason Occam's Razor can never be used to determine the truth of a thing. That is completely outside of it's design parameters. I suggest it can only be used in decision making. Occam's Razor can be a useful computational tool, but I have yet to see it applied in any way that is not fallacious in common parlance.

You don't need to go through all the turns of the theory to demonstrate it's not Occam's razor.

Occam's Razor has nothing to do with a theory, it has to do with deciding between theories; i.e. it is a process. A theory can't be "not Occam's Razor." The phrase doesn't even make any sense.

Setting up a ridiculously over complicated theory is simply not Occam's razor.

Let me try a different approach.

Let's try a hypothetical.

Let's suppose that you have specific knowledge of the media. You believe that the media is run by Big Brother, and you believe that the media creates fake news stories every day by employing crisis actors. In this hypothetical world these things aren't hidden from anyone, but are common knowledge. Not only do you know that such staged events happen daily, but everyone knows it. In such a scenario, saying "this was a staged event" would be "the least complex theory" purely through the context of other knowledge.

In this scenario, is this truly the "least complex theory," or is does it just have numerous hidden assumptions based on the context of prior information? Like, we still would have to assume that the people involved were crisis actors. We would have to assume they weren't reacting organically, but according to a script. We would have to assume some nebulous hidden string puller wrote that script. But in the context of such staged acts on the news being "common knowledge" we wouldn't even recognize that as an assumption, because "everyone knows all the people on tv are crisis actors."

This is, in my experience, the most common application of "Occam's Razor" and it is a completely fallacious application. The hidden assumptions are everywhere, yet shoved under the rug of "common experience" without even realizing we are doing it. That is exactly how you seem to be approaching your "this is an overly complex theory" statement, and rightly so. You are recognizing all of the hidden assumptions because those assumptions aren't common knowledge and, likely, you disagree with them.

But what about someone who has spent years researching the media, and intelligence agencies, etc.? What about someone who has seen how often these events have occurred? For such a person, assuming they had found such events to be commonplace with legitimate and undeniable evidence, those hidden assumptions would creep in and influence their "least complex theory."

For those on the other side, where the belief is that these events are far more often organic than contrived, "common knowledge" would hide a completely different set of assumptions. In this scenario, a person would know about at least one time where an event on the news was staged (say, Jessie Smollett), but would assume that most of the news is organically derived. The assumptions there would be that the people involved aren't crisis actors, the people are acting organically, not reading from a script, and there is no hidden string puller writing such a script. They wouldn't even think of these things as assumptions, On the contrary, "everyone knows these things are true (except the crazy conspiracy theorists) and they don't even need to be considered as assumptions". Regardless of the truth of anyone's beliefs, both sides would be doing the same thing, but in the opposite way, thus coming to completely opposite conclusions on what the "most complex theory" is, because they have a completely different set of hidden assumptions and a completely different rug of "common knowledge" to sweep them under.

This is why "Occam's Razor" is a completely misunderstood and abused tool. I suggest it only applies rationally in the method I have employed it, from an information theoretic perspective, where one is trying to find the "least complicated theory" according to the strictures of that discipline. Any other application will be (and I believe always is) absolutely fraught with hidden assumptions that hide under the guise of "common knowledge."

This is also one reason Occam's Razor can never be used to determine the truth of a thing. That is completely outside of it's design parameters. I suggest it can only be used in decision making. Occam's Razor can be a useful computational tool, but I have yet to see it applied in any way that is not fallacious in common parlance.

You don't need to go through all the turns of the theory to demonstrate it's not Occam's razor.

Occam's Razor has nothing to do with a theory, it has to do with deciding between theories; i.e. it is a process. A theory can't be "not Occam's Razor." The phrase doesn't even make any sense.

Setting up a ridiculously over complicated theory is simply not Occam's razor.

Let me try a different approach.

Let's try a hypothetical.

Let's suppose that you have specific knowledge of the media. You believe that the media is run by Big Brother, and you believe that the media creates fake news stories every day by employing crisis actors. In this hypothetical world these things aren't hidden from anyone, but are common knowledge. Not only do you know that such staged events happen daily, but everyone knows it. In such a scenario, saying "this was a staged event" would be "the least complex theory" purely through the context of other knowledge.

In this scenario, is this truly the "least complex theory," or is does it just have numerous hidden assumptions based on the context of prior information? Like, we still would have to assume that the people involved were crisis actors. We would have to assume they weren't reacting organically, but according to a script. We would have to assume some nebulous hidden string puller wrote that script. But in the context of such staged acts on the news being "common knowledge" we wouldn't even recognize that as an assumption, because "everyone knows all the people on tv are crisis actors."

This is, in my experience, the most common application of "Occam's Razor" and it is a completely fallacious application. The hidden assumptions are everywhere, yet shoved under the rug of "common experience" without even realizing we are doing it. That is exactly how you seem to be approaching your "this is an overly complex theory" statement, and rightly so. You are recognizing all of the hidden assumptions because those assumptions aren't common knowledge and, likely, you disagree with them.

But what about someone who has spent years researching the media, and intelligence agencies, etc.? What about someone who has seen how often these events have occurred? For such a person, assuming they had found such events to be commonplace with legitimate and undeniable evidence, those hidden assumptions would creep in and influence their "least complex theory."

For those on the other side, where the belief is that these events are far more often organic than contrived, "common knowledge" would hide a completely different set of assumptions. In this scenario, a person would know about at least one time where an event on the news was staged (say, Jessie Smollett), but would assume that most of the news is organically derived. The assumptions there would be that the people involved aren't crisis actors, the people are acting organically, not reading from a script, and there is no hidden string puller writing such a script. They wouldn't even think of these things as assumptions, On the contrary, "everyone knows they are true (except the crazy conspiracy theorists) and they don't even need to be considered as assumptions". Regardless of the truth of anyone's beliefs, both sides would be doing the same thing, but in the opposite way, thus coming to completely opposite conclusions on what the "most complex theory" is, because they have a completely different set of hidden assumptions and a completely different rug of "common knowledge" to sweep them under.

This is why "Occam's Razor" is a completely misunderstood and abused tool. I suggest it only applies rationally in the method I have employed it, from an information theoretic perspective, where one is trying to find the "least complicated theory" according to the strictures of that discipline. Any other application will be (and I believe always is) absolutely fraught with hidden assumptions that hide under the guise of "common knowledge."

This is also one reason Occam's Razor can never be used to determine the truth of a thing. That is completely outside of it's design parameters. I suggest it can only be used in decision making. Occam's Razor can be a useful computational tool, but I have yet to see it applied in any way that is not fallacious in common parlance.

You don't need to go through all the turns of the theory to demonstrate it's not Occam's razor.

Occam's Razor has nothing to do with a theory, it has to do with deciding between theories; i.e. it is a process. A theory can't be "not Occam's Razor." The phrase doesn't even make any sense.

Setting up a ridiculously over complicated theory is simply not Occam's razor.

Let me try a different approach.

Let's try a hypothetical.

Let's suppose that you have specific knowledge of the media. You believe that the media is run by Big Brother, and you believe that the media creates fake news stories every day by employing crisis actors. In this hypothetical world these things aren't hidden from anyone, but are common knowledge. Not only do you know that such staged events happen daily, but everyone knows it. In such a scenario, saying "this was a staged event" would be "the least complex theory" purely through the context of other knowledge.

In this scenario, is this truly the "least complex theory," or is does it just have numerous hidden assumptions based on the context of prior information? Like, we still would have to assume that the people involved were crisis actors. We would have to assume they weren't reacting organically, but according to a script. We would have to assume some nebulous hidden string puller wrote that script. But in the context of such staged acts on the news being "common knowledge" we wouldn't even recognize that as an assumption, because "everyone knows all the people on tv are crisis actors."

This is, in my experience, the most common application of "Occam's Razor" and it is a completely fallacious application. The hidden assumptions are everywhere, yet shoved under the rug of "common experience" without even realizing we are doing it. That is exactly how you seem to be approaching your "this is an overly complex theory" statement, and rightly so. You are recognizing all of the hidden assumptions because those assumptions aren't common knowledge and, likely, you disagree with them.

But what about someone who has spent years researching the media, and intelligence agencies, etc.? What about someone who has seen how often these events have occurred? For such a person, assuming they had found such events to be commonplace with legitimate and undeniable evidence, those hidden assumptions would creep in and influence their "least complex theory."

For those on the other side, where the belief is that these events are far more often organic than contrived, "common knowledge" would hide a completely different set of assumptions. In this scenario, a person would know about at least one time where an event on the news was staged (say, Jessie Smollett), but would assume that most of the news is organically derived. The assumptions there would be that the people involved aren't crisis actors, the people aren't acting organically but are reading from a script, and there is no hidden string puller writing such a script. They wouldn't even think of these things as assumptions, On the contrary, "everyone knows they are true (except the crazy conspiracy theorists) and they don't even need to be considered as assumptions". Regardless of the truth of anyone's beliefs, both sides would be doing the same thing, but in the opposite way, thus coming to completely opposite conclusions on what the "most complex theory" is, because they have a completely different set of hidden assumptions and a completely different rug of "common knowledge" to sweep them under.

This is why "Occam's Razor" is a completely misunderstood and abused tool. I suggest it only applies rationally in the method I have employed it, from an information theoretic perspective, where one is trying to find the "least complicated theory" according to the strictures of that discipline. Any other application will be (and I believe always is) absolutely fraught with hidden assumptions that hide under the guise of "common knowledge."

This is also one reason Occam's Razor can never be used to determine the truth of a thing. That is completely outside of it's design parameters. I suggest it can only be used in decision making. Occam's Razor can be a useful computational tool, but I have yet to see it applied in any way that is not fallacious in common parlance.

You don't need to go through all the turns of the theory to demonstrate it's not Occam's razor.

Occam's Razor has nothing to do with a theory, it has to do with deciding between theories; i.e. it is a process. A theory can't be "not Occam's Razor." The phrase doesn't even make any sense.

Setting up a ridiculously over complicated theory is simply not Occam's razor.

Let me try a different approach.

Let's try a hypothetical.

Let's suppose that you have specific knowledge of the media. You believe that the media is run by Big Brother, and you believe that the media creates fake news stories every day by employing crisis actors. In this hypothetical world these things aren't hidden from anyone, but are common knowledge. Not only do you know that such staged events happen daily, but everyone knows it. In such a scenario, saying "this was a staged event" would be "the least complex theory" purely through the context of other knowledge.

In this scenario, is this truly the "least complex theory," or is does it just have numerous hidden assumptions based on the context of prior information? Like, we still would have to assume that the people involved were crisis actors. We would have to assume they weren't reacting organically, but according to a script. We would have to assume some nebulous hidden string puller wrote that script. But in the context of such staged acts on the news being "common knowledge" we wouldn't even recognize that as an assumption, because "everyone knows all the people on tv are crisis actors."

This is, in my experience, the most common application of "Occam's Razor" and it is a completely fallacious application. The hidden assumptions are everywhere, yet shoved under the rug of "common experience" without even realizing we are doing it. That is exactly how you seem to be approaching your "this is an overly complex theory" statement, and rightly so. You are recognizing all of the hidden assumptions because those assumptions aren't common knowledge and, likely, you disagree with them.

But what about someone who has spent years researching the media, and intelligence agencies, etc.? What about someone who has seen how often these events have occurred? For such a person, assuming they had found such events to be commonplace with legitimate and undeniable evidence, those hidden assumptions would creep in and influence their "least complex theory."

For those on the other side, where the belief is that these events are far more often organic than contrived, "common knowledge" would hide a completely different set of assumptions. In this scenario, a person would know about at least one time where an event on the news was staged (say, Jessie Smollett), but would assume that most of the news is organically derived. The assumptions there would be that the people involved aren't crisis actors, the people aren't acting organically but are reading from a script, and there is no hidden string puller writing such a script. Both sides would be doing the same thing, but in the opposite way, thus coming to completely opposite conclusions on what the "most complex theory" is, because they have a completely different set of hidden assumptions and a completely different rug of "common knowledge" to sweep them under.

This is why "Occam's Razor" is a completely misunderstood and abused tool. I suggest it only applies rationally in the method I have employed it, from an information theoretic perspective, where one is trying to find the "least complicated theory" according to the strictures of that discipline. Any other application will be (and I believe always is) absolutely fraught with hidden assumptions that hide under the guise of "common knowledge."

This is also one reason Occam's Razor can never be used to determine the truth of a thing. That is completely outside of it's design parameters. I suggest it can only be used in decision making. Occam's Razor can be a useful computational tool, but I have yet to see it applied in any way that is not fallacious in common parlance.

You don't need to go through all the turns of the theory to demonstrate it's not Occam's razor.

Occam's Razor has nothing to do with a theory, it has to do with deciding between theories; i.e. it is a process. A theory can't be "not Occam's Razor." The phrase doesn't even make any sense.

Setting up a ridiculously over complicated theory is simply not Occam's razor.

Let me try a different approach.

Let's try a hypothetical.

Let's suppose that you have specific knowledge of the media. You believe that the media is run by Big Brother, and you believe that the media creates fake news stories every day by employing crisis actors. In this hypothetical world these things aren't hidden from anyone, but are common knowledge. Not only do you know that such staged events happen daily, but everyone knows it. In such a scenario, saying "this was a staged event" would be "the least complex theory" purely through the context of other knowledge.

In this scenario, is this truly the "least complex theory," or is does it just have numerous hidden assumptions based on the context of prior information? Like, we still would have to assume that the people involved were crisis actors. We would have to assume they weren't reacting organically, but according to a script. We would have to assume some nebulous hidden string puller wrote that script. But in the context of such staged acts on the news being "common knowledge" we wouldn't even recognize that as an assumption, because "everyone knows all the people on tv are crisis actors."

This is, in my experience, the most common application of "Occam's Razor" and it is a completely fallacious application. The hidden assumptions are everywhere, yet shoved under the rug of "common experience" without even realizing we are doing it. That is exactly how you seem to be approaching your "this is an overly complex theory" statement, and rightly so. You are recognizing all of the hidden assumptions because those assumptions aren't common knowledge and, likely, you disagree with them.

But what about someone who has spent years researching the media, and intelligence agencies, etc.? What about someone who has seen how often these events have occurred? For such a person, assuming they had found such events to be commonplace with legitimate and undeniable evidence, those hidden assumptions would creep in and influence their "least complex theory."

For those on the other side, where the belief is that these events are far more often organic than contrived, "common knowledge" would hide a completely different set of assumptions. In this scenario, both sides would be doing the same thing, but in the opposite way, thus coming to completely opposite conclusions on what the "most complex theory" is, because they have a completely different set of hidden assumptions and a completely different rug of "common knowledge" to sweep them under.

This is why "Occam's Razor" is a completely misunderstood and abused tool. I suggest it only applies rationally in the method I have employed it, from an information theoretic perspective, where one is trying to find the "least complicated theory" according to the strictures of that discipline. Any other application will be (and I believe always is) absolutely fraught with hidden assumptions that hide under the guise of "common knowledge."

This is also one reason Occam's Razor can never be used to determine the truth of a thing. That is completely outside of it's design parameters. I suggest it can only be used in decision making. Occam's Razor can be a useful computational tool, but I have yet to see it applied in any way that is not fallacious in common parlance.

You don't need to go through all the turns of the theory to demonstrate it's not Occam's razor.

Occam's Razor has nothing to do with a theory, it has to do with deciding between theories; i.e. it is a process. A theory can't be "not Occam's Razor." The phrase doesn't even make any sense.

Setting up a ridiculously over complicated theory is simply not Occam's razor.

Let me try a different approach.

Let's try a hypothetical.

Let's suppose that you have specific knowledge of the media. You believe that the media is run by Big Brother, and you believe that the media creates fake news stories every day by employing crisis actors. In this hypothetical world these things aren't hidden from anyone, but are common knowledge. Not only do you know that such staged events happen daily, but everyone knows it. In such a scenario, saying "this was a staged event" would be "the least complex theory" purely through the context of other knowledge.

In this scenario, is this truly the "least complex theory," or is does it just have numerous hidden assumptions based on the context of prior information? Like, we still would have to assume that the people involved were crisis actors. We would have to assume they weren't reacting organically, but according to a script. We would have to assume some nebulous hidden string puller wrote that script. But in the context of such staged acts on the news being "common knowledge" we wouldn't even recognize that as an assumption, because "everyone knows all the people on tv are crisis actors."

This is, in my experience, the most common application of "Occam's Razor" and it is a completely fallacious application. The hidden assumptions are everywhere, yet shoved under the rug of "common experience" without even realizing we are doing it. That is exactly how you seem to be approaching your "this is an overly complex theory" statement, and rightly so. You are recognizing all of the hidden assumptions because those assumptions aren't common knowledge and, likely, you disagree with them.

But what about someone who has spent years researching the media, and intelligence agencies, etc.? What about someone who has seen how often these events have occurred? For such a person, assuming they had found such events to be commonplace, those hidden assumptions would creep in and influence their "least complex theory."

For those on the other side, where the belief is that these events are far more often organic than contrived, "common knowledge" would hide a completely different set of assumptions. In this scenario, both sides would be doing the same thing, but in the opposite way, thus coming to completely opposite conclusions on what the "most complex theory" is, because they have a completely different set of hidden assumptions and a completely different rug of "common knowledge" to sweep them under.

This is why "Occam's Razor" is a completely misunderstood and abused tool. I suggest it only applies rationally in the method I have employed it, from an information theoretic perspective, where one is trying to find the "least complicated theory" according to the strictures of that discipline. Any other application will be (and I believe always is) absolutely fraught with hidden assumptions that hide under the guise of "common knowledge."

This is also one reason Occam's Razor can never be used to determine the truth of a thing. That is completely outside of it's design parameters. I suggest it can only be used in decision making. Occam's Razor can be a useful computational tool, but I have yet to see it applied in any way that is not fallacious in common parlance.

You don't need to go through all the turns of the theory to demonstrate it's not Occam's razor.

Occam's Razor has nothing to do with a theory, it has to do with deciding between theories; i.e. it is a process. A theory can't be "not Occam's Razor." The phrase doesn't even make any sense.

Setting up a ridiculously over complicated theory is simply not Occam's razor.

Let me try a different approach.

Let's try a hypothetical.

Let's suppose that you have specific knowledge of the media. You believe that the media is run by Big Brother, and you believe that the media creates fake news stories every day by employing crisis actors. In this hypothetical world these things aren't hidden from anyone, but are common knowledge. Not only do you know that such staged events happen daily, but everyone knows it. In such a scenario, saying "this was a staged event" would be "the least complex theory" purely through the context of other knowledge.

In this scenario, is this truly the "least complex theory," or is does it just have numerous hidden assumptions based on the context of prior information? Like, we still would have to assume that the people involved were crisis actors. But in such a context of it being "common knowledge" we wouldn't even recognize that as an assumption, because "everyone knows all the people on tv are crisis actors."

This is, in my experience, the most common application of "Occam's Razor" and it is a completely fallacious application. The hidden assumptions are everywhere, yet shoved under the rug of "common experience" without even realizing we are doing it. That is exactly how you seem to be approaching your "this is an overly complex theory" statement, and rightly so. You are recognizing all of the hidden assumptions because those assumptions aren't common knowledge and, likely, you disagree with them.

But what about someone who has spent years researching the media, and intelligence agencies, etc.? What about someone who has seen how often these events have occurred? For such a person, assuming they had found such events to be commonplace, those hidden assumptions would creep in and influence their "least complex theory."

For those on the other side, where the belief is that these events are far more often organic than contrived, "common knowledge" would hide a completely different set of assumptions. In this scenario, both sides would be doing the same thing, but in the opposite way, thus coming to completely opposite conclusions on what the "most complex theory" is, because they have a completely different set of hidden assumptions and a completely different rug of "common knowledge" to sweep them under.

This is why "Occam's Razor" is a completely misunderstood and abused tool. I suggest it only applies rationally in the method I have employed it, from an information theoretic perspective, where one is trying to find the "least complicated theory" according to the strictures of that discipline. Any other application will be (and I believe always is) absolutely fraught with hidden assumptions that hide under the guise of "common knowledge."

This is also one reason Occam's Razor can never be used to determine the truth of a thing. That is completely outside of it's design parameters. I suggest it can only be used in decision making. Occam's Razor can be a useful computational tool, but I have yet to see it applied in any way that is not fallacious in common parlance.

You don't need to go through all the turns of the theory to demonstrate it's not Occam's razor.

Occam's Razor has nothing to do with a theory, it has to do with deciding between theories; i.e. it is a process. A theory can't be "not Occam's Razor." The phrase doesn't even make any sense.

Setting up a ridiculously over complicated theory is simply not Occam's razor.

Let me try a different approach.

Let's try a hypothetical.

Let's suppose that you have specific knowledge of the media. You believe that the media is run by Big Brother, and you believe that the media creates fake news stories every day by employing crisis actors. In this hypothetical world these things aren't hidden from anyone, but are common knowledge. Not only do you know that such staged events happen daily, but everyone knows it. In such a scenario, saying "this was a staged event" would be "the least complex theory" purely through the context of other knowledge.

Is this truly the "least complex theory," or is does it just have numerous hidden assumptions based on the context of prior information? Like, we still would have to assume that the people involved were crisis actors. But in such a context of it being "common knowledge" we wouldn't even recognize that as an assumption, because "everyone knows all the people on tv are crisis actors."

This is, in my experience, the most common application of "Occam's Razor" and it is a completely fallacious application. The hidden assumptions are everywhere, yet shoved under the rug of "common experience" without even realizing we are doing it. That is exactly how you seem to be approaching your "this is an overly complex theory" statement, and rightly so. You are recognizing all of the hidden assumptions because those assumptions aren't common knowledge and, likely, you disagree with them.

But what about someone who has spent years researching the media, and intelligence agencies, etc.? What about someone who has seen how often these events have occurred? For such a person, assuming they had found such events to be commonplace, those hidden assumptions would creep in and influence their "least complex theory."

For those on the other side, where the belief is that these events are far more often organic than contrived, "common knowledge" would hide a completely different set of assumptions. In this scenario, both sides would be doing the same thing, but in the opposite way, thus coming to completely opposite conclusions on what the "most complex theory" is, because they have a completely different set of hidden assumptions and a completely different rug of "common knowledge" to sweep them under.

This is why "Occam's Razor" is a completely misunderstood and abused tool. I suggest it only applies rationally in the method I have employed it, from an information theoretic perspective, where one is trying to find the "least complicated theory" according to the strictures of that discipline. Any other application will be (and I believe always is) absolutely fraught with hidden assumptions that hide under the guise of "common knowledge."

This is also one reason Occam's Razor can never be used to determine the truth of a thing. That is completely outside of it's design parameters. I suggest it can only be used in decision making. Occam's Razor can be a useful computational tool, but I have yet to see it applied in any way that is not fallacious in common parlance.

You don't need to go through all the turns of the theory to demonstrate it's not Occam's razor.

Occam's Razor has nothing to do with a theory, it has to do with deciding between theories; i.e. it is a process. A theory can't be "not Occam's Razor." The phrase doesn't even make any sense.

Setting up a ridiculously over complicated theory is simply not Occam's razor.

Let me try a different approach.

Let's try a hypothetical.

Let's suppose that you have specific knowledge of the media. You believe that the media is run by Big Brother, and you believe that the media creates fake news stories every day by employing crisis actors. In this hypothetical world these things aren't hidden from anyone, but are common knowledge. Not only do you know that such staged events happen daily, but everyone knows it. In such a scenario, saying "this was a staged event" would be "the least complex theory" purely through the context of other knowledge.

Is this truly the "least complex theory," or is does it just have numerous hidden assumptions based on the context of prior information? Like, we still would have to assume that the people involved were crisis actors. But in such a context of it being "common knowledge" we wouldn't even recognize that as an assumption, because "everyone knows all the people on tv are crisis actors."

This is, in my experience, the most common application of "Occam's Razor" and it is a completely fallacious application. The hidden assumptions are everywhere, yet shoved under the rug of "common experience" without even realizing we are doing it. That is exactly how you seem to be approaching your "this is an overly complex theory" statement, and rightly so. You are recognizing all of the hidden assumptions because those assumptions aren't common knowledge and, likely, you disagree with them.

But what about someone who has spent years researching the media, and intelligence agencies, etc.? What about someone who has seen how often these events have occurred? For such a person, assuming they had found such events to be commonplace, those hidden assumptions would creep in and influence their "least complex theory."

For those on the other side, where the belief is that these events are far more often organic than contrived, "common knowledge" would hide a completely different set of assumptions. In this scenario, both would be doing the same thing, but in the opposite way, thus coming to completely opposite conclusions on what the "most complex theory" is, because they have a completely different set of hidden assumptions and a completely different rug of "common knowledge" to sweep them under.

This is why "Occam's Razor" is a completely misunderstood and abused tool. I suggest it only applies rationally in the method I have employed it, from an information theoretic perspective, where one is trying to find the "least complicated theory" according to the strictures of that discipline. Any other application will be (and I believe always is) absolutely fraught with hidden assumptions that hide under the guise of "common knowledge."

This is also one reason Occam's Razor can never be used to determine the truth of a thing. That is completely outside of it's design parameters. I suggest it can only be used in decision making. Occam's Razor can be a useful computational tool, but I have yet to see it applied in any way that is not fallacious in common parlance.