Final answer:
Occam's razor suggests that the simplest explanation is often the best, but more complex explanations may be necessary if supported by strong evidence. Conspiracy theories are criticized for their complexity without depth, while arguments for intelligent design may inadvertently argue against such a designer due to unnecessary complexity. However, Occam's razor is not absolute, and requires explanations to be supported by evidence regardless of their complexity.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question touches on the philosophical principle of Occam's razor, which suggests that the simplest explanation is usually the best one. Considering the possibility of incommensurable degrees of explanatory complexity, this might seem to challenge the utility of Occam's razor. Explanatory complexity refers to the number and intricacy of concepts, mechanisms, or 'moving parts' in a given explanation. While Occam's razor favors simplicity, complex explanations can sometimes be more accurate or necessary, especially if they are supported by substantial evidence. Conspiracy theories often provide highly complex explanations that lack the virtues of being simple, conservative, and deep, as they raise more questions than they answer and require a multitude of assumptions to account for observed phenomena.
Furthermore, the argument of intelligent design as an explanation for the complexity of the universe can paradoxically negate its own premise by suggesting that complexity implies the absence of an intelligent designer. This is because an omniscient and omnipotent designer's creation would not necessarily require complex and seemingly wasteful constructs. Consequently, the assumption that complexity indicates the work of an intelligent force does not necessarily support the concept of a designer but can be used to refute it.
Ultimately, while Occam's razor promotes simplicity, it is not an absolute rule. The principle supports the idea that unnecessary complications should be avoided, but explanations must still account for all the observed data. In cases where more complex explanations are substantiated by extraordinary evidence, they may indeed be the correct ones despite their complexity. Therefore, the potential for highly complex explanations does not fundamentally undermine Occam's razor, but rather emphasizes the need for evidence in supporting any explanation.