In playful contrast to Occam's Razor. (it's actually not diametrically opposed, I'd say an angle of about 65 deg. on some axis) While the Razor says we should use the simplest explanation first (as a preferred hypothesis) I say that in some experimental environments, it is best to use the explanation that explains the most. This may often not be the simplest explanation -- it is often the most complex. The Razor can be susequently applied to the Butterknife's list of hypotheses, to weed out abusrdly complex explanations.

The Butterknife is intuitively connected with holism and top-down approaches to systems. It is also practically useful in environments where you need to get your bearings quickly, from a subjective stadpoint, to avoid going crazy or panicking. It is also very useful in situations where you know, on some level, that you're making at all up. Like in art and imagination, where you're looking for something beautiful and pleasing.

Rigorous scientists would say that the Butterknife is incomaptible with true scientific method because it is too optimistic and hopeful.

This is true.

Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.