For those who may be interested.
Here is a specific example of using “Occam” in a situation like this:
(As usual, I will preface my comments by saying that I am giving an example, based on the information publicly available. I am NOT saying that I am certain, or even confident, this is what happened. What I am saying is: Absent other information, and using certain info that is available, I am led in this direction as a possibility that is more likely than some others.)
Given:
1. The BEA reported that (at least) 43 of the 50 bodies recovered displayed very similar serious compression injuries/fractures.
2. Those bodies were of passengers widely dispersed throughout the aircraft (according to seat assignments).
3. The simplest (reasonable) explanation for facts 1 and 2 is that all sections of the aircraft impacted in the same fashion. Why? Because the contemplation of other scenarios requires a great deal of coincidence. It is possible that a more complex , and statistically far less probable, chain of events could give the same result. BUT it’s not nearly as likely. For the vast majority of bodies from all parts of the aircraft to exhibit the same injury patterns, the simplest and most likely explanation is that those passengers all exhibited very similar injuries because passengers from all parts of the aircraft were subject to the same impact dynamics.
4. The simplest (reasonable) explanation for statement 3 is that the aircraft was intact on impact.
5. Therefore, it is more likely the aircraft did not break up prior to impact.
Occam at work.
And to repeat for emphasis: The above is not a conclusion. It is a possible scenario, made more likely than some others, in the light of known facts only.
grizz