Since the Middle ages it has played an important role in eliminating unnecessary elements from explanations. This is of course nonsense in relation to an archaeological investigation of unseen evidence since Occam's razor cannot apply to the sciences and many areas of life that require human experience. No the Law of Occam is an outdated philosophy restricted to a last stand, when all else fails. I would rather rely on Gillette's Razor, at least I know I wont get my throat cut when I try to explain how to apply it to boat parts in the Combe Haven valley. I hope that every time Mr Gardiner hears a reference to Occam's razor, he will remember my advise to trust in Gillette' s razor.
Reductionism is a cop-out to avoid looking at the evidence.
What is known is explainable and it is no good seeking a simple existing solution to new scientific facts. From Section ten onwards of Mr Gardiner's report he looks at the archaeological evidence. Paragraph 10.1 produces a list of archaeological evidence which Mr Gardiner details that I have presented as evidence. Mr Gardiner has omitted from this list the excavations at the Norman camp, he has omitted the Norman boat parts, he has omitted the Redgeland Wood evidence and the evidence for the port at Redgeland, all of which are crucial elements in building the case. To fail to report them here does not induce any sense of trust in the conclusions reached.