Principles of Insufficiency and Sufficiency

  The principles we use but don't know it. 

1.     Introduction. Every field, scientific or otherwise, rests on foundational principles—think buoyancy, behavior, or democracy. Here, we explore a unique subset: principles modified by "insufficiency" and "sufficiency." While you may never have heard of them, you use them often. These terms frame principles that blend theory, practicality, and aspiration, by offering distinct perspectives. Insufficiency often implies inaction unless justified, while sufficiency suggests something exists or must be done. We’ll examine key examples and introduce a new principle with potential significance. As a principle of principles of these is that something or some action is not done enough while others may be done too much. The first six (§2-6) of our principles are in the literature, and you can easily search them online. The others are relatively new, but fit the concepts in the real world.

At times, these principles are invoked during times of uncertainty or even pressure. They are often quickly applied, and more often than not, checked later. Even doctors and engineers do this.  When it comes to problem-solving, people use a variety of ad hoc methods based on experience and particular techniques. It is time to explain exactly what they are, where they are used, and when we might use them unknowingly.

First, a clarification. You may be thinking these are subsumed by the famous Ockham’s razor, which suggests the simplest solution is the correct or best one.  Our principles  are similar to Ockham’s in gross terms, but our principles here offer a solution, not a choice criterion between multiple solutions.  

2.     The Principle of Sufficient Reason. This principle asserts that everything, every event, and every existence has a cause or explanation. Historically, it’s been used to argue for God as the universe’s cause. The Big Bang explains the universe’s origin, but what caused the Big Bang? This leads to infinite regress: if a cause exists, it too must have a cause, and so on. Some reject this, arguing no ultimate cause is needed. In physics, this applies to phenomena like electromagnetic forces, which exist and thus “must” have causes. In medicine, this principle drives the search for disease causes, moving beyond vague notions like “malaise.” Yet, causes can be misidentified—consider the debunked claim linking vaccinations to autism. Argue as follows: Almost everyone who has autism has had vaccinations. Therefore autism is caused by vaccinations.

3.     The Principle of Insufficient Reason (Indifference). Used in mathematics and beyond, this principle advises against action without evidence. For example, when rolling a six-sided die, no face is favored, so each has an equal probability (1/6). In police work, it guides investigators to prioritize evidence over assumptions. Not a theorem, it’s a guideline, not rooted in axioms but useful for decision-making. asically, if you cannot find a reason why two things are different, they must be the same. Here is an example that professors love to level at their students.

Example. Suppose you have a circle, with center at the origin, of radius 10, . For all the points on the circle (x,y) find the point where their sum is maximum. This circle is symmetric in both variables. So, the solution should be where  Plug this into the equation and solve for x. Thus, the solution is   Mercifully, we avoided full details. Otherwise, you need calculus (or sneak it through with trigonometry) to solve this problem. Students agree with the principle of insufficient reasoning as applied but are still mystified. Please note, we haven’t proved the answer, But we did find it. Calculus proves it.

4.     The Principle of Least Action. Unlike the above, this is a rigorous theorem in physics, stating that a particle’s path between two points minimizes energy or time. It shows that some principles are mathematically precise, while others serve as practical rules of thumb.

5.     The Principle of Insufficient Punishment. This principle suggests lighter punishments may be more effective than harsh ones. By reducing penalties, perpetrators may be motivated to align with societal rules, rooted in theories of human behavior.

6.     The Principle of Insufficient Justification. From psychology, this principle describes behavior justified by internal rationalization rather than external evidence. It ties to another principle, which influences individual and collective actions.

7.     The Principle of Insufficient Action (PIA) Distinct from physics, the PIA applies to human, political, and social spheres. It posits that some action is better than none, regardless of actual needs. Unlike thermodynamic systems, where entropy naturally increases, the PIA implies adding external energy to organize or disrupt human systems. People naturally stabilize, organizing and prioritizing to maintain a steady state. Change requires external “energy”, discontent, emergencies, or societal pressures. The PIA reflects modern urgency, where constant action is expected, often driven by uncertainty about the future. Poorly considered actions can result, though effective leaders mitigate this by addressing subtle societal needs, like offering assurances through campaign promises.

8.     Other Principles. We’ve taken the idea of insufficiency to review a few principles that seem to have pervaded our thinking. If there’s one thing a scientist loves beyond measure, it is to discover (or invent) a new principle (of something). In an earlier draft, I wrote I had cooked up these three. Then I started looking and found them.

a.      The Principle of Insufficient Cash. Many live on the brink of poverty, scraping by but never comfortable. This drives participation in lotteries, where people spend $10–$30 hoping for a windfall to escape financial strain, echoing historical lotteries and organized crime’s “Numbers Game.”

b.     The Principle of Insufficient Insurance. Fueled by growing insecurity, people increasingly buy insurance beyond traditional life or auto policies—think appliance or extended product warranties. This reflects a societal shift toward over-insuring against perceived risks.

c.      The Principle of Insufficient Testing. This principle questions the adequacy of testing for products like drugs or aircraft. Testing may be limited in scale or scope, missing rare issues. For example, aspirin wouldn’t pass modern drug testing standards, and Thalidomide’s 1950s tragedy highlights testing failures. Similarly, the Boeing 737 Max, et al. faced scrutiny, possibly due to inadequate software or pilot training tests. It asks: when is testing sufficient?

9.     Conclusions. Some of these principles can be used to great advantage when solving problems, giving quick and easy resolutions. Others are more general and lack clear logical grounding, so caution is essential when applying them. Blind adherence is not recommended. They are merely one path forward, and each should be thoroughly tested against logic.

If you are a parent, you already know certain principles well. For example, when Johnny says all the other kids have one, you know it’s not true; it is an example of the Principle of Insufficient Evidence. Another example: concluding that all animal life on Earth is water-based, therefore life must have begun in water. Such reasoning may lead to insights, but sometimes it creates new problems, which can spark genuine research and further problem-solving.

We all have personal principles of which some rooted in Ockham’s razor, others in induction, and still others in abduction, where we choose the best quick solution. These principles can apply to almost any subject or circumstance. In fact, we often use them without even realizing it.

10.  Your Turn. You’ve now seen many examples. As a learning test, it’s your turn to create a few yourself. Create your own principle of insufficiency or sufficiency, tied to a familiar subject. Consider the Principle of Insufficient Competition, Sufficient Love or Caution, Insufficient Debt, or another topic.

11. References.

1.               Leibniz, G. W. (1714). Monadology. Translated by R. Latta, 1898. Available at: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38427

2.               Pruss, A. R. (2006). The Principle of Sufficient Reason: A Reassessment. Cambridge University Press.

3.               Keynes, J. M. (1921). A Treatise on Probability. Macmillan and Co. Available at: https://archive.org/details/treatiseonprobab00keyn

4.               Jaynes, E. T. (2003). Probability Theory: The Logic of Science. Cambridge University Press.

5.               Feynman, R. P., Leighton, R. B., & Sands, M. (1964). The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume II. Addison-Wesley. https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_19.html

6.               Goldstein, H., Poole, C., & Safko, J. (2002). Classical Mechanics (3rd ed.). Addison-Wesley.

7.               Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior. Macmillan.

8.               Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Prentice Hall.

9.               Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.

10.            Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. M. (2010). Social Psychology (7th ed.). Pearson.

11.            Luhmann, N. (1995). Social Systems. Stanford University Press.

12.            Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid Modernity. Polity Press.

13.            Clotfelter, C. T., & Cook, P. J. (1990). “On the Economics of State Lotteries.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 4(4), 105–119.

14.            Friedman, M., & Savage, L. J. (1948). “The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk.” Journal of Political Economy, 56(4), 279–304.

15.            Kunreuther, H., & Pauly, M. (2006). “Insurance and Behavioral Economics: Improving Decisions in the Most Misunderstood Industry.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 32(2), 123–149.

16.            Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.” Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.

17.            Reason, J. (1990). Human Error. Cambridge University Press.

 

8/7/2025 G Donald Allen