Funny, I always thought Feynman's Razor was along these lines (from 1979 QED lectures in New Zealand, response to audience question):
> Q: "Do you like the idea that our picture of the world has to be based on a calculation which involves probability?"
> A: "...if I get right down to it, I don't say I like it and I don't say I don't like it. I got very highly trained over the years to be a scientist and there's a certain way you have to look at things. When I give a talk I simplify a little bit, I cheat a little bit to make it sound like I don't like it. What I mean is it's peculiar. But I never think, this is what I like and this is what I don't like, I think this is what it is and this is what it isn't. And whether I like it or I don't like it is really irrelevant and believe it or not I have extracted it out of my mind. I do not even ask myself whether I like it or I don't like it because it's a complete irrelevance."
As far as complexity and how to explain things to people without technical experience of the subject, the rabbit hole always goes deeper. Here's a nice quote from the rotation in space section of the caltech lectures:
> "We shall not use these equations in all their generality and study all their consequences, because this would take many years, and we must soon turn to other subjects. In an introductory course we can present only the fundamental laws and apply them to a very few situations of special interest."
That’s such a typical Feynman answer too. charitably he’s doing it because he doesn’t want to misspeak or suggest something untrue from his position of expertise - but it does also come off as being dodgy about answering people’s questions. He does the exact same thing in that video clip where an interviewers asks him how magnets work .
That's just part of the answer, he goes on to say that if you ask questions of nature and don't like the answers then that's just too bad, you don't get to dictate to nature how to behave. Scientists who don't like particular results because they don't match their philosophy of how things should be (most famously Einstein and QM) tend to end up tilting at windmills and not making any more progress.
However, humans can't help having likes and dislikes but I think the trick is to save that for other areas of interest - e.g., art or music or people or activities that you like for entirely subjective reasons.
> Q: "Do you like the idea that our picture of the world has to be based on a calculation which involves probability?"
> A: "...if I get right down to it, I don't say I like it and I don't say I don't like it. I got very highly trained over the years to be a scientist and there's a certain way you have to look at things. When I give a talk I simplify a little bit, I cheat a little bit to make it sound like I don't like it. What I mean is it's peculiar. But I never think, this is what I like and this is what I don't like, I think this is what it is and this is what it isn't. And whether I like it or I don't like it is really irrelevant and believe it or not I have extracted it out of my mind. I do not even ask myself whether I like it or I don't like it because it's a complete irrelevance."
As far as complexity and how to explain things to people without technical experience of the subject, the rabbit hole always goes deeper. Here's a nice quote from the rotation in space section of the caltech lectures:
> "We shall not use these equations in all their generality and study all their consequences, because this would take many years, and we must soon turn to other subjects. In an introductory course we can present only the fundamental laws and apply them to a very few situations of special interest."