What are Some Famous Scientific Razors and How Do They Shape Our Thinking?

[BillTre]

I ran across a reference to Hanlan's Razor today and had not heard of it before.
Wikipedia's description of it is:
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity".
Its history is somewhat blurry and possibly related to Robert Heinlein.

From there I ran into Hitchen's Razor:
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence",
which apparently echos sayings from the 1800's.

Then of course there is Carl Sagan's famous saying (The Sagan Standard) of:
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", which was preceded by
Marcello Truzzi's (never heard of him before, but apparently a famous skeptic) saying of:
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof".

All of these may be relevant to some forum discussions from time to time.

 

[Drakkith]

I'm a big supporter of those brands of razors. I always buy them at full price and even tip the cashier when I pay.

 

[KenJackson]

I ran across a reference to Hanlan's Razor today and had not heard of it before.

I ran across this for the first time just a few months ago. I appreciate the wisdom, but I'm a little concerned about lobbing the "stupid" label.

People who have strong political positions which differ from my own carefully thought-out political positions sometimes call me "stupid." It's as if they're saying "you're stupid because you disagree with me." In fact, I understand the appeal of calling someone stupid who disagrees with me, but I fight very hard to resist because there's no benefit to it.

Hanlan's Razor is valuable because it takes it down a notch from malice (a greater bad) to mere stupidity. But I'm still cautious.

 

[QuantumQuest]

Hanlan's Razor regards malice and stupidity as two different things and personally I have serious doubts about that. Even this way the phrase holds true but in a radically different way. Moreover, I think that a definition of stupidity beyond some certain obvious things - even this is debatable in some cases, is very subjective if someone takes into account all sectors and levels of human activity and the objectivity of such claim.

 

[Choppy]

The version of what's being discussed as "Hanlan's Razor" I'd heard was attributed to Napoleon and stated as:
"Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence."

Doing a quick search for it suggests that it may not have actually come from Napoleon, but I much prefer this version of it. The word "stupidity" tends to both be insulting and carries the implication that the subject of the statement is not capable of understand the implications of his or her actions. I'm sure that occasionally that's the case, but it also caries an unspoken implication that the situation is impossible to correct. The word "incompetence" (and ignorance fits well in there too), while perhaps not without insult, implies that it's at least possible to move forward by making the subject competent.

 

[jim mcnamara]

Is that because: you cannot fix stupidity, but you can overcome ignorance with education? ...maybe.

 

[Choppy]

Is that because: you cannot fix stupidity, but you can overcome ignorance with education? ...maybe.

When you call someone stupid, you pretty much close the door to ever improving the situation. When you call that person ignorant, the implication is that it's at least possible to improve the situation. That doesn't mean it will improve - even with education. But at least the door isn't closed.

 

[Drakkith]

Whether you use the word "stupidity", "ignorance", or "incompetence", the crux of Hanlan's razor remains the same. Don't jump to conclude that something happened because of malice and ill-will when it can be adequately explained by various other more likely causes.

 

[BillTre]

In a sense, I think that stupid isn't always permanent:

From time to time, I'll do something I (in retrospect) think was stupid and I say to myself: "Well that was stupid!" (I feel temporarily stupid).
Then I try (usually successfully I would like to think) to avoid making the same stupid mistakes (or wrong decisions) that I made before (its called learning).

Not all people might use an approach similar to mine. There's always a variety of people.

 

[XZ923]

In a sense, I think that stupid isn't always permanent:

From time to time, I'll do something I (in retrospect) think was stupid and I say to myself: "Well that was stupid!" (I feel temporarily stupid).
Then I try (usually successfully I would like to think) to avoid making the same stupid mistakes (or wrong decisions) that I made before (its called learning).

Not all people might use an approach similar to mine. There's always a variety of people.

I think it really comes down to a difference between ignorance and willful ignorance. Unfortunately there are some people who simply refuse to accept they can be wrong about anything. I know a guy who thinks that connecting a generator wind to a light via a vehicle chassis is electrically different than doing it with a wire. I've explained to him countless times that a "ground" on a vehicle is nothing more than a convenient circuit common, conclusively demonstrated it, yet he still refuses to accept that a metal chassis and a metal wire are both conductors. I finally gave up (admittedly, the fact that he sends people with those vehicles to me was a motivating factor).

"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing."-Socrates (and I think Ygritte from Game of Thrones)

 

[Bystander]

a [insert]The[/insert] difference between ignorance and willful ignorance

Amen.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing."-Socrates

Hi XZ923:

I believe there is an ambiguity problem about the usage of "know". I believe Socrates means that to "know" removes any uncertainty about what is "known", and it is wise to recognize that there is always uncertainty. I believe the common usage of "know" means having a believe with a great deal of confidence it is correct, but not necessarily certainty.

Regards,
Buzz

 

[phinds]

In a sense, I think that stupid isn't always permanent:

From time to time, I'll do something I (in retrospect) think was stupid and I say to myself: "Well that was stupid!" (I feel temporarily stupid).
Then I try (usually successfully I would like to think) to avoid making the same stupid mistakes (or wrong decisions) that I made before (its called learning)..

We use the word stupid rather causally, but a quick on-line look for a definition gives "stupid: having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense." This comports exactly with my concept of the meaning. It is not ignorance and it is not fixable. The things you describe are ignorance, not stupidity. Lack of mental ability can be compensated for by hard work, perseverance, study, etc but it is what it is.

 

[BillTre]

We use the word stupid rather causally

I agree. This means if you want to use a specific definition you should identify it.

a quick on-line look for a definition gives "stupid: having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense." This comports exactly with my concept of the meaning.

Seems like an OK definition to me.

It is not ignorance and it is not fixable. The things you describe are ignorance, not stupidity. Lack of mental ability can be compensated for by hard work, perseverance, study, etc but it is what it is.

I would disagree with this. It is not part of the definition you quoted (which I believe I found here).
And, in fact, the example of given for that definition ("I was stupid enough to think she was perfect") strongly implies that it was a regret from the past that was (may have been) learned from.

Thus, stupid would appear to include being in a fixable and overcome-able state, at least in some definitions.

 

[phinds]

Thus, stupid would appear to include being in a fixable and overcome-able state, at least in some definitions.

Yeah, I tend to be overly black and white. Stupid, I know.

 

[AlexCaledin]

- speaking of razors, Einstein's seems the best

 

[Ken Fabos]

Perhaps we should take care not to attribute anything to any particular motivation without some attempt to assemble what is known and give that due consideration. It might be incompetence or even, on average, more likely to be incompetence but malice does exist and it does motivate people to say and do things. What people say and do often involve mixed motivations so attributing them to a single one will very often be wrong.