Just A Thought:

7 Philosophical Razors You Need To Know

What is a “philosophical razor”?

In philosophy, a razor is a principle or a rule of thumb, that allows for the elimination (the“shaving off”) of unlikely explanations for a phenomenon.

A philosophical razor is not an unbreakable law or rule, it is not always right 100% of the time, but it is right more often than not, and is, therefore, a useful mental shortcut that allows you to make decisions and solve problems quicker and easier.

Occam’s Razor

Occam’s razor is a problem-solving principle that states that when you’re presented with multiple competing hypotheses for a phenomenon or explanations for an event, you should start by selecting the simplest and most likely one, the one that makes the fewest assumptions.

Why? Because the more assumptions there are, the more possibilities there are for error, and the simplest explanation is usually – but not always – the correct one.

Note: 

Occam’s razor doesn’t allow for the exclusion of data or evidence, so if the simplest explanation doesn’t account for all of the available data and evidence, then it’s not the best explanation.

“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” – Albert Einstein.

Occam’s Duct Tape

The opposite of Occam’s razor is Occam’s duct tape which is when someone approaches a problem with a ridiculously large number of assumptions. 

Sagan Standard

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” – Carl Sagan

If someone claims that their name is Michael, or that their dog's name is Charlie, that’s not an extraordinary claim. It’s reasonable to take them at their word. However, if someone claims that they, or their guru/religious/spiritual teacher, can contact the dead, see the future, read minds, cure or heal any disease or sickness, or they have supernatural powers of any kind, then these are extraordinary claims, and they must be backed up by extraordinary evidence such as a live demonstration to prove it.   

Christopher Hitchens Razor

Hitchen’s razor ties in nicely with the Sagan standard.

If someone is going to assert something without evidence, especially an extraordinary claim that demands evidence, you can dismiss it without evidence. This is because the burden of proof is always on the one making the claim, not the other way around. For example: If I claim to be able to contact the dead, predict the future, read minds etc. it’s not up to you to prove that I can’t – it’s up to me to prove that I can.

Hitchens's razor will save you a lot of time because most people don’t have any evidence to back up their assertions.

Hume’s Razor

David Hume’s razor states that causes must be sufficiently able to produce the effect assigned to them e.g. a slight gust of wind isn’t enough to cause a Boeing 747 to crash, and a fallen power line isn’t enough to cause a nationwide blackout. If a proposed cause isn’t sufficiently able to produce the observed effect, we must eliminate the cause from consideration, and come up with another hypothesis, or show what needs to be added to the cause to create the effect.

Duck Test

“If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.” 

The duck test is about abductive reasoning and drawing the most likely conclusion given the evidence, instead of denying the obvious. It’s sometimes used to counter arguments that someone or something isn’t what they appear to be. I know that in the world of deep fakes, fake news, fake people, scams etc., it might be considered unwise or even dangerous to take appearances for reality. However, although appearances can be deceiving, there is generally no need to deny reality or what’s right in front of your eyes. Generally speaking, what you see is what you get.If someone or something seems a certain way, they probably are that way.

Hanlon’s Razor

“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence or stupidity.” 

Hanlon’s razor states that if someone acts in a way that affects you negatively, it’s not necessarily because they have bad intentions towards you, or mean you harm, more likely (depending on the person and the situation) they’re simply: 

• Careless 
• Incompetent 
• Ignorant 
• Unaware of how they’re affecting you
• Don’t know any better

For example:

If your neighbour has a loud party on a school or work night till 3 a.m., it’s unlikely that they did it to annoy you, more likely they’re just inconsiderate and were unaware that it would bother you.

If a colleague is constantly interrupting you when you’re working on something important, or racing towards an urgent deadline, it’s unlikely that they’re trying to sabotage your efforts and want to see you fail; they probably just don’t realize how annoying and distracting they’re being.

99.99% of the time other people’s behaviour has nothing to do with you, even when they’re being annoying, disrespectful, rude, offensive etc. However, do use your common sense and intuition. If it’s clear that someone is intentionally trying to cause you harm, act accordingly to protect yourself.