• https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2026.10210Copy DOI Icon

Parsimony and Overfitting

Show More
  • Abstract
  • Literature Map
  • Similar Papers
Abstract

Abstract Philosophers often defend appeals to parsimony by invoking its central role in science. I argue that this move fails once we distinguish between two uses of parsimony: non-ideal and ideal . Non-ideal parsimony enjoys strong inductive support in science, since complex models are prone to overfit to predictively irrelevant noise. But philosophical data aren’t significantly noisy in the relevant sense: when our intuitions are unreliable, their unreliability typically reflects systematic bias rather than noise, which parsimony doesn’t mitigate. Philosophers therefore need ideal parsimony, which finds only weak support from science. Thus, the scientific analogy cannot vindicate the philosopher’s use of parsimony.

Similar Papers
  • Research Article
  • Citations36

Linking preclinical and clinical whole-body physiologically based pharmacokinetic models with prior distributions in NONMEM

  • Mar 08, 2007
  • European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
  • Grant Langdon +3
  • Book Chapter
  • Citations1

Buyer Behavior Theories

  • Jan 21, 2015
  • Wiley Encyclopedia of Management
  • Flora Kokkinaki
Cactus Communications logo

Copyright 2026 Cactus Communications. All rights reserved.