Well, I think this last part is a major key to this:
But this is all just special pleading. Occam’s razor was never meant for paring nature down to some beautiful, parsimonious core of truth. Because science is so difficult and messy, the allure of a philosophical tool for clearing a path or pruning the thickets is obvious. In their readiness to find spurious applications of Occam’s razor in the history of science, or to enlist, dismiss, or reshape the razor at will to shore up their preferences, scientists reveal their seduction by this vision.
Because Occum's Razor tells you absolutely nothing about something's actual "truth value." Perhaps, like much of "philosophy" that enters in to something like "popular culture" the whole notion is somewhat misunderstood and then misapplied. To my primative mind, the Razor only tells you to apply the minimum necessary to get "explainative" results. So, for example, there is no need to say 2E=mC²/2 becuase that is literally just adding reducible terms in there for no real reason.
However, I think this might speak to something of a vary "human desire" to render things "simple" in the sense of "comprehendable." This is plausibly what all of philosophy "really is" a sort of "creative" way of taking something (the universe) and making it "sensable" to human minds via some conceptual framework, which is really, in every case, necessarily simplification. It seems no wonder that it would "fail to get things right" because it must, by it's very nature, fail to capture the full complexity of the thing at hand, which could be nothing less than the entire universe. All that could capture that complexity is the universe itself, it would seem to me.
OK, I might be off the rails now...