In knowledge there is always a trade-off between accuracy and

simplicity.
Evaluate this statement in relation to two areas of knowledge.

A rigorous evaluation of the statement first requires definitions of the terms accuracy and
simplicity. For the purposes of this essay, accuracy shall refer to the degree to which a
proposition conforms to the truth. Simplicity shall refer to the ease with which a concept can
be understood. Of course, individuals possess varying abilities to understand concepts so we
shall assume that they have an adequate understanding of the subject matter in question. The
term trade-off shall be understood as implying a negative correlation between accuracy and
simplicity.
As a student of Physics, I have become increasingly aware of the contrasting examples of the
apparent trade-off in the natural sciences.
For me, particular interest arises from the discrepancies between classical and relativistic
mechanics. Whilst classical mechanics originated in the 17th Century with the work of Isaac
Newton, the newer relativistic mechanics is based on Albert Einsteins Theory of Relativity
published in 1905. Many branches of classical mechanics are, in fact, approximations of the
newer more accurate theories.
Consider the classical equation for linear momentum, which states that momentum is equal to
the product of the mass and velocity of a body. Indeed, this is an approximation of the
relativistic equation which reveals the momentum to also be divided by the square root of the
quantity 1-(v2/c2), where v is the velocity of the body and c is the speed of light. Clearly,
by the definitions established, the relativistic form is both less comprehensible but closer to
the true value than its classical counterpart. In this case it is clear that greater accuracy
comes at the expense of reduced simplicity.
However, relativistic mechanics does not simply replace classical or nullify its validity. The
classical variant is often taught exclusively until university level, and continues to find use in
applied fields. Further inspection of the equations reveals that measurable differences only
arise at exceedingly high speeds- close to that of light. In many familiar applications of
momentum, limits to sense perception hinder our ability to detect such miniscule
inaccuracies, and it could therefore be argued that the subsequent trade-off is also minimal.
Taking an example from astronomy; it would take 140 years of observing Mercury before the
difference between its classically predicted circular orbit and its actual elliptical orbit could
be perceived by the human eye.
That being the case; to what extent should we sacrifice accuracy for simplicity in applying
knowledge?
If the relativistic form were used exclusively, fewer people would be able to understand and
apply the concept of momentum. The provokes a consideration of whether we should favour
the more accurate variant, even if a finite sense perception hinders our ability to even detect
the increased accuracy. If fewer people are able to understand and apply the concept of
momentum, but to a greater degree of accuracy, is there a net loss or gain of understanding?
It must be said, however, that in certain applications of momentum the merits of relativity
become apparent and the trade-off is clear. This highlights how the nature of the relationship

between simplicity and accuracy often depends on the knowers perspective. To a physicist,
the perceived decrease in simplicity may be minimal, but the increased accuracy could be
vital to their particular application, thus minimising the apparent trade-off.
By way of contrast, other aspects of natural science posit the opposite relationship to that of
the titular statement; that simplicity enhances accuracy and complexity facilitates error.
Occams razor, described as the principle of parsimony of explanations1, is often employed
by scientists deciding between competing hypotheses. While the original statement can be
translated as Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity,2 a well-known
interpretation has developed to imply that simplicity leads to greater accuracy. The canonical
example of this is the prevalence of Einsteins theory of relativity over Lorentzs theory of
the ether. Indeed, both theories made the same predictions with the same equations, but the
relative simplicity of warping space-time as presented by Einstein triumphed over Lorentzs
abstract interpretation of inexplicable ether.
However, it could be argued that a preference for simplicity is merely a product wishful
thinking, reflecting a profound belief in the innate orderliness and salience of nature that
clouds the value of empiricism as the ultimate arbiter of scientific dispute. Indeed, the allure
of a simple theory, arising from associations with concepts such as elegance and beauty,
undoubtedly influences scientists hypotheses and has led to the overlooking of trade-offs. It
was Mathematician and astronomer, Copernicus, who was famously enamoured to the notion
of circular, as opposed to the more accurate elliptical, orbit due to its aesthetic merits.3
In a similar inclination towards simplicity, proponents of reductionism seek to establish
complex scientific theories in terms of simpler ones; they attempt to achieve accuracy whilst
maintaining simplicity and thus contradict the existence of a trade-off. However, there are
properties of the physical world which can only be accurately described with multifaceted
theories, and cannot be justified by fundamental explanations alone. For example; the
perceived property of wetness only emerges once the elements of hydrogen and oxygen are
combined. This could not be understood solely through studying the atomic structures of the
constituent elements. An attempt to simplify has led to decreased accuracy, thereby
highlighting the trade-off.
In knowledge gained through the natural sciences, there is often a trade-off between accuracy
and simplicity. But, the relationship is by no means consistent; the extent to which either
accuracy or simplicity is sacrificed often depends on the specific application and the
knowers perspective. Moreover, as demonstrated by Occams razor, simplicity itself can
sometimes lead to greater accuracy. In such cases, we must be careful not to overlook tradeoffs; often natures true, most accurate, form does not conform to our aesthetic prejudices.
Granted, this does not detract from the merits of applying simpler, less accurate theories to
enhance our understanding of the physical world.

1
2
3

Tornay, S. C. (1938). Ockham: Studies and Selections. (La Salle, IL: Open Court).
Glynn, I. (2010). Elegance in science. (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

In religious knowledge systems, it is often the case that multiple groups claim absolute
accuracy of knowledge within their respective religions, but with varying degrees of
complexity in their beliefs.
While monotheistic religions, such as Judaism, may advance the principle of a single
omniscient and omnipotent deity; polytheistic religions, such as Hinduism, can present a
complex array of Gods as manifestations of natural principles. What these doctrines share,
however, is an absolute conviction in the accuracy of their knowledge. Thus, one might argue
that in religious knowledge systems there seems to be no discernible relationship between
accuracy and simplicity.
The crux of this argument centres on the classification of accuracy with reference to the
notion of truth. This definition is easily compatible with the natural sciences, in which true
values are based on observations of physical phenomena. However religious knowledge, in
which faith alone is sufficient justification, leads to several different contradicting truths
and a distinct lack of any single unifying fact.
Therefore to explore the nature of accuracy, and thus its relation to simplicity in religious
knowledge, we must consider different theories of truth. Relativism, the position that truth is
relative to the individual, allows these contradictory explanations in religious knowledge to
coexist in harmony, hence repudiating the proposed trade-off. But such a stance could be said
to reduce the objective concept of truth to a mere personal preference, this invokes the
question: to what extent does the means of justifying truth affect its accuracy?
Some religious believers would rebut the truth of knowledge ascertained through induction,
as in the sciences, and argue that true metaphysical truth transcends the bounds of reason or
logic. Indeed, so goes the principle of fideism which states that faith is independent of logic.
Some might argue for accuracy in the historical sense, a belief that is consistent with the
correspondence theory of truth- which states that a proposition is true only if it corresponds to
a verifiable fact. Pursuing this line of argument; Christianity is often cited as the religious text
with the most pertinent historical evidence,4 and, as we have seen, its monotheistic principles
may be considered simple. This contrasts the less historically accurate, often mythological,
basis of the more complex beliefs in Hinduism. Even in instances where we are able to
establish varying degrees of accuracy in religious knowledge, it seems that there is no tradeoff as Christianity may be thought to be both more accurate and simple.
To conclude there are instances in which a trade-off between accuracy and simplicity in
knowledge exists, but this is not always the case. In religious knowledge systems we have
seen a distinct lack of compromise, arising from the faith-based justification of a wholly
accurate belief. Even in the application of an alternative means of justifying truth that does
establish differing degrees of accuracy within religious beliefs, a trade-off is not exhibited.
Trade-offs have been shown to arise within the natural sciences. Examples include modern
adaptations to the theory of momentum, and attempts to apply reductionist principles.
4

However, the nature of this relationship is not constant and factors such as the knowers
perspective can often affect the degree to which either accuracy or simplicity is sacrificed.