Close, but not exact. I am not a philosopher, but from what I remember in my philosophy classes, Occam's Razor is a tool used by philosophers and in predicate calculus to simplify theories. It does not guarantee that the result is "more true". The only thing the Razor states is: if a fact or event does not have any apparent impact on the reasoning of a theory, it can safely be removed from the logic behind that theory and thus ignored.

Now, let's say we want to reason that something exists... a chair, a street, our spouse or brother, even our own bodies or our own selves. Okay. So how do we know that any of these things really do exist? Or are they a product of our imagination. Now, let's assume for the sake of argument that we are all really living inside a Matrix-like thing: that someone or something has created a virtual world that we cannot distinguish from reality (think mad scientist with a brain in a jar). If we accept this as true, then no physical object we "see" can be real. To take it a step further, if we assume this to be true, we cannot be sure that anyone other than ourselves is real. Going further still, how can we be sure that we are ourselves human? Could our cognitive and emotive processes be not simply the product of some advanced computer algorithm humming away inside some bit of silicon? And so on, and so on ad infinitum.

Now here is where Occam's Razor comes into play. When trying to come up with a theory that something exists (or prove if we are/are not brains-in-a-jar), we can apply Occam's Razor to say that any fact or theory or hypothesis or whatever that does not have any noticeable impact on the observable resulting logic can be removed. In this example, we can use the Razor to cut out all that brain-in-a-jar Matrix stuff, since the result (our reality as we know it) is the same with or without all of that. Thus we arrive at the simpler philosophical conclusion that yes, the chair, street, our brother, our spouse, and even ourselves do indeed exist in reality.

Occam's Razor does not prove the "brain-in-a-jar" concept false. It simply says that it can be ignored and TREATED as false. Other philosophical and scientific customary practices (perhaps there is another theory or law to govern this) state that something is false until it is proven to be true. Thus we can safely assume (for now) that our brain-in-a-jar theory IS FALSE until such time as verifiable empirical evidence presents itself to completely prove otherwise.

I really want to believe that strange and wonderful things exist. Occasionally I do. For the most part, though, I do not see sufficient verifiable proof.