Why shouldn't the Occam's Razor solution be used to solve Kavanaugh's problem with Dr.Ford?

Q: Why can't he remember their encounter?
A; Because he was drunk at the time it happened

Makes zero sense. Seek education

Exactly. But what makes sense doesn't serve the current administration or the country club that's running congress.

She can't remember either

First of all, she can't remember any relevant thing that took place 36 years ago +-?
It's disgusting that people like you think something happens when there's a lack of evidence to support it.

Take democrats for their word. They want to deny all his appointments. Occam's razor, she made up the whole thing and wants to delay the vote till after the midterms when the blue wave will change the judiciary committee. She will never testify. The next call will be for an investigation. The investigation will end IN LATE NOVEMBER.

The reputation of any man in America could be destroyed if we accepted as true any allegation, even 35 year old, without physical evidence or eye witnesses.
There's simply no basis in law or fact for deciding the truth in this case.
Since we have the standard of presumption of innocence the result is clear.

no proof = no conviction

According to the principle of Occam's Razor, when presented with competing hypotheses, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions. Following this logic, one would deduce as follows:
Q: Why can't he remember their encounter?
A: Because it didn't happen.

Unlike Libbers, we Conservatives have difficulty remembering that which never happened.

Yes I suspose it could but then there would be other problems.

While that would be a rather simple explanation as to why he doesn't remember doing something, generally speaking we seek to prove things BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT when convicting someone through the legal system. Occam's razor has its purposes… But the simple explanation does not rule out other ones that, honestly, are simple themselves. All Occam's razor does is convince people to assume the "most likely" but does nothing to say whether or not other "very likely" results are invalid. As other explanations are very much still in play, such logic really shouldn't be used especially with stakes such as these.

Furthermore, the assumption only works to explain why he doesn't remember the night, but does nothing to prove that the event in question happened. Perhaps his alcohol intact prevented him from remembering… But what about alternate theories such as that he passed out before he could allegedly assault Ford. That doesn't violate the idea that he doesn't remember due to alcohol and, depending on how you look at it, may make a bit more sense (at least to others) if accounts of his personality and behavior from others can be believed.