Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

First and foremost, I would like to extend a hearty "job well done" to the fine members of MI-5, and all other agencies, foreign and domestic, working in conjunction with MI-5's efforts, for their thwarting of a very serious and very real terrorist plot.

Seriously. No sarcasm. Job well done.

However, their fine efforts are not the subject of this entry.

While the handcuffs that bound the suspects are not even cooled to room temperature, out come the conspiracy theorists claiming that the entire thing was some sort of "plot" to make people scared into voting for certain parties.

What is wrong with these people?

Seriously, if one of you conspiracy theorists is reading this, please, e-mail me and explain to me why it makes for sense to believe an elaborately intricate plot to somehow "scare" voters into thinking one way makes more sense over a simpler, more logical, explanation that there were actually people who wanted to blow up airlines in mid-air for the sake of their cause. Please, let me know how this thought process plays out.

But, before you do, let me key you in on the meaning of the this blog entry's title.

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem translates into "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity."

This phrase was coined by English logician, and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. You might even remember that he was the protagonist in the story The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco. In modernity, this phrase is most often used a heuristic maxim that advises economy, i.e., parsimony, or simplicity in scientific theories. Occam's razor stands for the premise that any explanation of a phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible. In this regard, the person formulating a theory should eliminate those assumptions that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory like a razor would "shave off" unnecessary hair. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae.

Keeping this in mind, please, any conspiracy theorists out there, explain to me why it makes for sense to believe an elaborately intricate plot to somehow "scare" voters into thinking one way over a simpler, more logical, explanation that there were actually people who wanted to blow up airlines in mid air for the sake of their cause.

Please... I really want to know.

Can I hypothesize?

My hypothesis is as follows:

Thesis: Conspiracy theorists consider themselves aligned with a political party and/or cause.

Thesis: Conspiracy theorists do not choose a political party and/or cause without believing in the tenets that the political party espouses.

Thesis: Conspiracy theorists consider themselves to be "smarter" than the other members of their population.

Hypothesis: Morbidly exacerbated senses of partisanship and hubris in conspiracy theorists have led those conspiracy theorists to the conclusion that any fact which is not concomitant with the well being of the political party which they consider to be the "correct" party, must not be true. Rather, any such fact must be the result of a "plot" on the part of political party not deemed to be "correct" in an attempt to undermine the "correct" political party.

In other words, since the conspiracy theorist, who can not be wrong, considers themselves a member of party X, any fact that inures to the benefit of party Y must not be true because that would threaten the factual underpin which makes the conspiracy theorist consider him/herself a member of party X.

See how that worked? Simple, rational, logically sound.

Try it sometime.. its fun!!!

P.S. Things like this happen during an election year because, in most democracies, every year is an election year on some level of government.