In the case of Fermi's paradox, the simplest explanation is...
Explanation for what? For why the million-item list of "things we don't know about extrasolar planets" includes whether or not life exists on any of them? Why does that even require an explanation?
The fermi paradox DOES build upon a cascade of assumptions, none of which have any support. The fundamental assumption is that if life was common in the universe, we could become aware of it, and that furthermore if INTELLIGENT life was common, we would be aware of it by now. Both of those are false assumptions, and all the others proceed from them.
Only if ALL - EVERY SINGLE ONE - of the aliens are hiding
Even the most far-fetched and romanticized sci-fi visions of what an interstellar civilization might look like, if that civilization does not possess FTL travel, the chances of their being aware of us are extremely small; significantly, our chances of being aware of them are much much smaller.
"100 million years is MORE than enough time to colonize the galaxy with ships only able of 0,1 lightspeed - 100 times more, to be exact."
What does a 100 million year old interstellar colonial species look like? At those timescales, our assumptions about who they are or what they are doing go right out the window, and recognizing it would become even harder: Just as far as Earth is concerned, 100 million years is a long enough time for a colony to be built, destroyed, then rebuilt and destroyed again over the course of a million years before being subsumed by erosion and elemental stress to the point that any artifacts of civilization would cease to be recognizable. OTOH, this being the Ancient Aliens thread we must also entertain the possibility that humans are the descendants of an alien race that colonized Earth millions of years ago before their society decayed into barbarism and the record of their origins was lost to time.
This, of course, stems from the assumption that interstellar colonization is likely to be a priority for spacefaring civilizations, when the only datapoint we have -- ourselves
-- suggests otherwise.
I guess Karl Popper and many other philosophers of science, philosophers, scientists were 'intelectually lazy', eh?
Robert Maxwell wrote:
If I could get rid of any two "laws" frequently cited on the Internet, they would definitely be Godwin's Law, and yes, Occam's Fucking Razor. "This explanation is complex, therefore it is wrong!" It encourages the absolute worst varieties of intellectual laziness.
They definitely didn't spend a lot of time on the internet, which is why Occam's Razor, applied in this thread, is being applied as an internet rule
In your own words: This explanation is MORE complex, therefore it is LIKELY wrong!
Is intellectually lazy. Take the two competing explanations:
1) "She stole my wallet because she is three months behind on paying her rent and she was terrified of being evicted and winding up homeless."
2) "She stole my wallet because it was shiny."
The simplest explanation is the more likely one WITH ALL OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES BEING THE SAME. Occam's Razor is the LAST thing you resort to when evidence supports both explanations equally but one explanation requires more elements than the other. If you skip the evaluation part and don't care about the evidence, then you're really just making declarations.