> when presented with competing hypotheses about the same prediction, one should prefer the one that requires fewest assumptions
Occam's razor would say that this is the first time we've noticed a balloon over the US, so we shot it down. Believing that there is an unspoken agreement between the US and China to allow a certain amount of spying and we're only taking a hard stance because the Chinese fucked up and got their balloon noticed by civilians has far more assumptions baked into it.
----
To be clear, I'm not saying the theory presented by OP is wrong, I'm just saying that it's not backed by Occam's Razor.
Occams Razor is “pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate” - “Pieces ought not to be positioned without necessity.”
You must you believe spy balloons are [always, sometimes, never] reported to the press, and the press [always, sometimes, never] reports them to the public, and the public [always, sometimes, never] reads the reports.
These pieces are already in position.
Do you really think “you ought not to position pieces without necessity” really favors “always” over sometimes?
Likewise, there is evidence the air balloons fly over America more than the authorities recognize.
What explanation has the fewest unnecessary parts: we have perfect tranferreance of knowledge from Air Force Intelligence to consumers of the press, or the phenomena are witnessing are normal and expected?
Edit: I removed some parts I placed without necessity.
I think the explanation that assumes there is an unspoken secret spying agreement between the two most powerful nations in the world without any evidence has the most unnecessary parts.
