Some HN users will use the ad hominem that the writer, Greer, is a wack job. Well, as Greer points out, William of Ockham was a medieval theologian. What does that make everyone who still (incorrectly) cites him?
Given the contempt media writers have for Western religion these days(and most HN users as well), it's amusing that a 14th century religious propagandist is treated as if he was capable of making such a broad claim about the nature of the universe. Maybe not all old philosophers were good enough thinkers to be worth citing.
Some HN readers will want a more mainstream source on this topic. How about the magazine whose owner was friends with Ghislaine Maxwell, and whose editor was a big pusher of the "Iraq still has an active WMD program" narrative in 2002? Great, here's an Atlantic piece: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/08/occams-r...