I utterly loathe Hanlon’s razor. It’s peak naivete, especially when it’s applied to groups of people that have ulterior motives - like business interests. It essentially gives companies a carte blanche to do evil shit, and when they get caught, all they have to do is blush and say “oops, how could that have possibly happened???!” But in reality, they were just doing some sort of self-serving behavior and hoping they could get away with it. And of course, they’ll just end up doing it again a few months or years later on when the attention has died away.
Moral of the story: Hanlon’s razor does not apply to corporations or other business interests. If it’s your neighbors, well maybe give them the benefit of the doubt. If it’s a multinational conglomerate, hell no, fuck that. Assume guilt 100% of the time.
I think you’re underestimating the heavy lifting being done by “adequately”. Does stupidity adequately explain a corporation doing evil shit that made them a bunch of money? Absolutely not.
I consider the whole set of razors to be pseudologic. Just because something helps pick a conclusion regardless of context doesn’t mean it helps pick the correct conclusion.
I also don’t get why they seem to be popular with people who like to act scientific, because they seem very unscientific to me.
But yeah, hanlon’s is specifically stupid and I suspect it was popularized precisely because it advocates a default level of reasonable doubt for malicious people to hide in.
But razors aren’t supposed to be logic in the first place. They’re not objective analytical tools to arrive at a conclusion, because they weren’t designed to be. They’re framing tools to help establish an initial hypothesis.
Occam’s razor doesn’t claim that the simplest explanation is true, it merely says it’s the most practical assumption, all else being equal. If additional data provides more support for a more complicated explanation, Occam’s really doesn’t require you to cling to the simpler one.
Similarly Hanlon’s razor doesn’t claim that stupidity is universally a better explanation than malice, only that is the most practical assumption, all else being equal. It does not require you to ignore patterns of behavior that shift the likelihood toward malice.
Yeah, that use of them makes sense, as a method to churn out hypotheses. But their wording suggests to me that they might not have been created for that purpose (Hanlon’s uses the word “never”) and I think the vast majority of the time I see people invoking them in discussions is to try to discredit another comment, not to explain why they are presenting a hypothesis (in fact, once you have the hypothesis, the brainstorming method used to get there isn’t really relevant anymore, next step should be determining ways to support or oppose that hypothesis).
It’s just frustrating seeing people quoting razors as if they are supporting evidence, and that is the pseudologic part.
I’ll also point out that “pseudoscience” or “pseudologic” doesn’t mean it’s useless, just that it isn’t as profound as many seem to believe it is.
I’d say more “select from” than “churn out”. It’s not about generating a hypothesis, it’s about having a collection of hypotheses and deciding which should be your default until additional evidence is provided.
Hanlon’s razor says “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”, and “adequately” is pulling at least as much weight as “never”. If stupidity becomes a less adequate explanation, nothing stops you from considering malice as an alternative.
People use things wrong all the time, sometimes the vast majority of the time (e.g. “literally”). Just because people use a concept pseudologically doesn’t make it intrinsically pseudological.
I also don’t get why they seem to be popular with people who like to act scientific, because they seem very unscientific to me.
They absolutely are. And it’s very aggravating to see people immediately invoking it without a second thought. They just assume it to be some absolute universal truth that should be accepted without question. But why?? How is that any different from religion at that point?
The paradox of intolerance is the one that’s been getting to me lately. People forgot that its a paradox and think it’s justification for them to attack people they disagree with.
Not sure what you are saying. With the order of the meme reversed it doesn’t make it obvious which point is supposed the clearer point of view…
Not sure what you are saying. With the order of the meme reversed it doesn’t make it obvious which point is supposed the clearer point of view…
It isn’t reversed compared to how this meme format is usually used: the glasses-on image is on the bottom, and associated with the viewpoint OP is saying is correct/better.
If one hasn’t seen (or has forgotten) the film, this is the way that makes sense, since glasses (generally) improve the wearer’s vision.
This meme’s canonical format is however in fact at odds with the actual scene in the 2002 film:
A related meme form which doesn’t have this ambiguity is the much older they live sunglasses - here the position of the two images are used less consistently (though as with peter parker, usually glasses-on is the lower one) but the glasses being on showing the truth actually fits with how it is in the film.
corollaries to Hanlon’s razor include:
This is a better way of saying what I tried to say in my own comment
This as a life philosophy leads to violent road rage.
If there is an established pattern of malice, it is stupidity to attribute it to stupidity.
Ah, yes. The Nolnah’s Razor.
Nolnah knew
Use the first version with personal relationships. Dont let paranoia ruin your social circle.
With politics, assume the worst.
If they were that stupid eventually something would go right for us and against billionaires and yet it never does. If someone really believes they’re all stupid but all their mistakes happen to benefit the exact same group of people who pay them, then idk what to tell them.
It’s usually a mixture of both. A lot of malicious people are also very stupid.
Not really they’re always motivated by self-interest and corruption. For example when Nick Shirley makes an obviously fake documentary about “fraud in Minnesota” he’s not just “doing it because he’s dumb”. He’s doing it because he’s receiving massive amounts of money to demonize that population.
Please lord forgive them not, for they know what they are doing
The more social status some has the more it becomes the second one in my mind
or smth else nut there is some distinct differenece in my mind
Sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice
No no, it can stay stupidity. But hammer home that its not an improvement
