Analysis of flawed analogy: "The workable Boy Scout pocket knife (as opposed to a Occam Razor) method for crossing a shallow but wide stream may be to go where the large rocks and logs are. That might not be a convenient quick straight line drawn by a surveyor with a high tech laser transit, either." Excellent. The Boy Scout has found the path of least energy. The straight line is not always the path of least resistance, as any observer of lightning bolts would realize.

I observe that there's a dry boy scout on one side of a stream and a boy scout tent on the other. I happen to know that the boy scout traveled only with what he could carry on his back - he had no canoe, nor could he carry an inflatable and also carry the supplies he would need for this particular outing. I observe that there is no sign of trees cut down, wood chips, strung line, or other evidence of fording between the two points. At that point, assuming the straight line path is NOT assuming the path of least energy and fewest choices. Assuming the straight line at that point involves assuming the boy scout devised a method of crossing and then spent time and energy eliminating all trace of that method, leaving himself separated from his camp - that is an unreasonable assumption.

Applying Occam's Razor leaves me with the conclusion that the boy scout traveled either upstream or downstream to find a means of crossing that I can not presently observe from my position. There is also a lesser but not improbable possibility that the boy scout and camp are unrelated, that some second boy scout is on the other side, out of my sight, perhaps trying to find the materials to help his friend ford the stream to join him, or perhaps unaware of the arrival of his friend, who is only now trying to puzzle out how he will get across. Further observation will give me clues to eliminate alternative hypotheses.