“In knowledge there is always a trade-off between accuracy and simplicity.”
Evaluate this Statement in Relation to Two Areas of Knowledge
In some context, simplicity is a term suggesting ignorance. It is not a way of knowing but a measure of knowledge. Simplicity can also refer to something that is basic or uncomplicated and may affect the way of knowing. Barrow argues that simplicity is a function of perspective. Based on his argument, a physicist might view the world as simple based on his understanding of particles and matter. Physics is a field based largely on reason and his interpretation of the universe as a series of simple algorithms is a function of perspective and in no way diminishes accuracy. On the other hand, a psychologist specializing in the innumerable variables of human behavior and what motivates it may see the world as wildly complicated. Psychology, however, is based on several ways of knowing including reason, but also sense perception, emotion, and intuition. If human behavior is oversimplified, then accuracy is most certainly lost.
Similarly, accuracy can be construed in various ways depending on the context. Accuracy in a hard science might be explained as correctly predicting the outcome of directly observable factors through quantitative measurement with only a single correct answer (Tal, Measurement in Science). Hard sciences are based largely on reason. Accuracy in a soft science, however, may not have a single answer. In fact, accuracy would allow for variations within a predetermined set of parameters.
There is room to argue that the simplest explanations are in fact the most accurate and, according to Alan Baker in writing on simplicity, may be better. Baker discusses this in terms of theory, noting that a simple theory “measures the number and conciseness of the theory’s basic principles,” (Simplicity). Baker introduces the philosophy of simplicity with deference to Aristotle, Aquinus and Kant, all of whom proposed that the hypotheses or principles on which theories are developed must be kept to the smallest possible number in order to ensure the highest level of accuracy. Baker goes on to quote Newton and Einstein, all touting the virtues of elegance and parsimony. Both represent manifestations of reason. And from this perspective, simplicity becomes a way of knowing.
Mathematics is an area of knowledge wherein simplicity and accuracy are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Mathematics in more basic forms is both simple and accurate. For example, consider the equation: 1 + 1 = 2. Its simplicity makes it no less accurate.
At higher levels of mathematics, the problems become increasingly complex as do the answers. However, the complexity of the answer does not represent an inverse correlation to the simplicity of it. There are equal degrees of accuracy regardless of where the problem and corresponding answer falls on the continuum of simple to complex.
Conversely, less simplicity may sometimes create less accuracy. For example, consider Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity: R = GE. Each of these letters represents a complex concept, and Einstein’s work in this area consists of ten complicated equations (Mastin). Ironically, for its complexity, accuracy becomes relative as there are variables in the equation wherein a single answer does not exist. In short, there is no absolute answer which then makes the hard science definition of accuracy no longer applicable. In the areas of mathematics, simplicity and accuracy may again imply a level of knowing. However, mathematics is known to be a foundational field of knowledge requiring mastery of the simple in order to acquire accuracy in the complex. In that sense, simple reason which guides the foundation of math leads to advanced reasoning skills that allows improved accuracy. Simplicity and accuracy begin working in tandem as a way of knowing mathematics.
Human history on the other hand may represent an example more reflective of the trade-off between simplicity and accuracy. The way we know history is through reason, language, and memory. Simplicity in these areas forces us to miss accurate interpretations of events.
Consider World War II: a simple understanding of its causes would be to attribute the problems to Hitler and his intent towards political, social and geographic domination. According to Gibson, it is an explanation that is simple and true in part, but it lacks accuracy; it does not accurately reflect the events leading to the Second World War.
A more accurate explanation requires understanding many more details: World War I and the treaties following, economy, nationalism, communism, left-wing leadership, and even Hitler’s biography (Beard). By understanding these finer, more subtle points, each requiring the student to improve his ability to understand language, recall memory, and use reason, we begin to have a more accurate understanding of the multiple factors leading to war declarations of one after another country. This underscores that in some cases simplicity is antonymous with accuracy.
Beard discusses various aspects of world events from an American perspective. He demonstrates an accurate, albeit complicated, outline for the causes of World War II. This brings us back to the matter of perspective discussed by Barrow. Beard wrote from an American perspective. Similar historical accounts were written from other leaders’ perspectives, also detailed and complex, and accurately reflect the causes of the war from that country’s unique position. Because one differs from the other does not make it less accurate, just from a different view point again highlighting the problem with defining terms. As such, another way of knowing history must necessarily be based on perception of the facts. A simplistic perception of events damages accurate understanding.
Areas of knowledge involving human interaction, judgement, thought or behavior more appropriately follows the standard that increasing accuracy may necessarily decrease simplicity and vice versa. These areas require emotion, intuition, language, perception and reason, all of which must mature beyond simplicity in order to attain accuracy. On the other hand, with a hard science, the same degree of accuracy may be maintained at the simplest level as at a complex level.
Albert Einstein is credited with saying, “If you can’t explain it to a six year old, you don’t understand it yourself.” Perhaps he is suggesting a balance between accuracy and simplicity. And perhaps the relationship between them is indefinable. They are not mutually exclusive in every situation, but they are not synonymous. In fact, it seems impossible to consistently predict the nature of their relationship. Once again it becomes a matter of perspective as Barrow contended. Perhaps in order to achieve true simplicity we must first achieve accuracy in all areas of knowledge with true simplicity meaning, not a reflection of ignorance, but of keen comprehension. The greater a person’s understanding, the simpler the knowledge may be. Perhaps achieving complex understanding begins with understanding its simplest form. Knowledge then becomes a layered approach with each layer representing higher, more complex levels of understanding. In this case, accuracy does not forego simplicity. On the contrary they become a function of one another as our way of knowing grows and is strengthened through improved ability to use language and reason, regulate emotion, control our memory and gain enough insight and experience to trust our intuition. Einstein may be telling us that if we cannot understand a thing so well we can break it down into a simple, childlike explanation, we have no hope of being accurate in our own understanding. In this case, simplicity is by no means a matter of not knowing, but a matter of knowing with true clarity and making a conscious choice to understand in simple terms regardless of how we know it. As such, we must master the ways of knowing in order to achieve accuracy, then choose simplicity; and one does not cause the loss of the other.
Works Cited
“Albert Einstein.” GoodReads. 2016. Web. 17 Jan. 2016.
Baker, Alan. “Simplicity” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2013 edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Web. Retrieved 17 Jan. 2016.
Barrow, John. “Simplicity Versus Complexity: Plato and Aristotle Revisted” Athens Dialogues E-Journal, 2012. Web. Retrieved 17 Jan. 2016.
Beard, Charles A. President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948. Print.
Gibson, Ryan. “Causes of World War II” World War II, 2013. Web. Retrieved 17 Jan. 2016.
Mastin, Luke. “General Theory of Relativity” The Physics of the Universe, 2009. Web. Retrieved 17 Jan. 2016.
Tal, Eran. “Measurement in Science” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2015 edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Web. Retrieved 17 Jan. 2016.
