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.
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.