In response to a question from the "EVILution of Communism" workshop, James Lindsay challenges Hanlon’s Razor as a shield against recognizing deliberate, coordinated actions from political figures and celebrities.
"Hanlon's Razor" is the PERFECT example of a linguistic CAUSE-EFFECT COMPLEX EQUIVALENCY.
The reason I so love the linguistic approach is that, unlike James Lindsay's approach, you DO NOT NEED TO KNOW WHERE IT CAME FROM.
Its very structure reveals the fallacy.
Example:
1. Redefine: Hanlon's Razor is not a universal principle but a heuristic that oversimplifies complex human behavior by dismissing intentionality.
2. Counter-Example: History is full of instances where malice was disguised as incompetence—consider COINTELPRO or Operation Gladio, where covert agendas were executed under the guise of bureaucratic mismanagement.
3. Consequence: If we apply Hanlon’s Razor indiscriminately, we risk excusing deliberate wrongdoing, allowing bad actors to continue unchecked simply because they seem incompetent.
4. Alternative Cause: What appears as incompetence might actually be a deliberate strategy of plausible deniability, where actors mask their intentions by feigning ignorance or failure.
5. Apply to Self: If Hanlon’s Razor were always true, then assuming it is correct might itself be an act of incompetence rather than reasoned judgment.
6. Intentional Reframing: Instead of assuming stupidity, it’s more productive to assess each situation on a case-by-case basis, recognizing that negligence and malice often coexist.
7. Hierarchy of Criteria: While Hanlon’s Razor applies to minor errors and misjudgments, larger systemic failures require a deeper analysis beyond mere incompetence.
8. Metaphor/Analogy: A magician’s trick appears to be simple sleight of hand, but behind it is a careful orchestration of deception—what seems like a mistake may, in fact, be a deliberate misdirection.
9. Chunk Up (Generalization): Hanlon’s Razor is just one of many mental shortcuts, but relying too much on heuristics can lead to blind spots in recognizing manipulation.
10. Chunk Down (Specifics): If Hanlon’s Razor were universally applicable, then espionage, propaganda, and corporate fraud would all be the result of mere stupidity, which ignores the layers of calculated intent in these areas.
11. Another Outcome: Whether through incompetence or malice, the result is often the same—damage is done. Therefore, focusing solely on intent distracts from the need for accountability.
12. Change Frame Size: A single bureaucratic blunder might be due to incompetence, but a consistent pattern of failures suggests something more coordinated than mere stupidity.
13. Apply to the Opposite: If malice were always disregarded in favor of incompetence, then every act of corruption or exploitation could be excused as a mistake, making it impossible to hold anyone responsible.
14. Exaggerate: If Hanlon’s Razor were an absolute truth, then no one would ever be held accountable for anything, since we could always assume stupidity rather than malevolence, no matter how much evidence suggests otherwise.
1. Redefine: Occam’s Razor is not a law of nature but a heuristic that prioritizes simplicity, which does not always equate to accuracy.
2. Counter-Example: Plate tectonics provided a more complex explanation for continental drift than earlier static Earth models, yet it accurately described geological phenomena like earthquakes and mountain formation, proving that simplicity is not always the best indicator of truth.
3. Consequence: If we always applied Occam’s Razor rigidly, we might dismiss deeper causes simply because they require more explanation, leading to oversimplified and misleading conclusions.
4. Alternative Cause: Simplicity in explanation often arises from missing information; what seems like the simplest answer may just be the result of incomplete understanding.
5. Apply to Self: If Occam’s Razor were always the best approach, then the principle itself would be suspect because it assumes the simplest explanation is usually correct, which is itself an oversimplification.
6. Intentional Reframing: Rather than prioritizing the simplest explanation, it’s more useful to prioritize the most coherent and evidence-based explanation, even if it involves complexity.
7. Hierarchy of Criteria: While Occam’s Razor is useful for practical problem-solving, deeper philosophical, historical, and scientific truths often require embracing complexity rather than reducing it.
8. Metaphor/Analogy: A well-made watch is intricate and complex; assuming the simplest mechanism would work just as well ignores the need for precision in function.
9. Chunk Up (Generalization): Occam’s Razor is just one of many decision-making tools, but critical thinking requires more than just seeking the simplest path—it requires evaluating all available data.
10. Chunk Down (Specifics): If Occam’s Razor were always the best approach, then quantum mechanics, and encryption systems would all be invalid because they require intricate explanations.
11. Another Outcome: Whether an explanation is simple or complex, the goal is truth; prioritizing simplicity over accuracy can lead to misinterpretations and dogmatic thinking.
12. Change Frame Size: Occam’s Razor might work well for small-scale problems, but for larger systems—like geopolitics or economics—oversimplification can lead to dangerous misunderstandings.
13. Apply to the Opposite: If complexity were always assumed to be unnecessary, then no one would ever investigate deeper causes, and all historical events could be reduced to single-variable explanations, which is rarely true.
14. Exaggerate: If Occam’s Razor were absolute, then all nuanced theories would be dismissed outright, and the world’s mysteries could be explained with childlike simplicity, regardless of contradictory evidence.
"Hanlon's Razor" is the PERFECT example of a linguistic CAUSE-EFFECT COMPLEX EQUIVALENCY.
The reason I so love the linguistic approach is that, unlike James Lindsay's approach, you DO NOT NEED TO KNOW WHERE IT CAME FROM.
Its very structure reveals the fallacy.
Example:
1. Redefine: Hanlon's Razor is not a universal principle but a heuristic that oversimplifies complex human behavior by dismissing intentionality.
2. Counter-Example: History is full of instances where malice was disguised as incompetence—consider COINTELPRO or Operation Gladio, where covert agendas were executed under the guise of bureaucratic mismanagement.
3. Consequence: If we apply Hanlon’s Razor indiscriminately, we risk excusing deliberate wrongdoing, allowing bad actors to continue unchecked simply because they seem incompetent.
4. Alternative Cause: What appears as incompetence might actually be a deliberate strategy of plausible deniability, where actors mask their intentions by feigning ignorance or failure.
5. Apply to Self: If Hanlon’s Razor were always true, then assuming it is correct might itself be an act of incompetence rather than reasoned judgment.
6. Intentional Reframing: Instead of assuming stupidity, it’s more productive to assess each situation on a case-by-case basis, recognizing that negligence and malice often coexist.
7. Hierarchy of Criteria: While Hanlon’s Razor applies to minor errors and misjudgments, larger systemic failures require a deeper analysis beyond mere incompetence.
8. Metaphor/Analogy: A magician’s trick appears to be simple sleight of hand, but behind it is a careful orchestration of deception—what seems like a mistake may, in fact, be a deliberate misdirection.
9. Chunk Up (Generalization): Hanlon’s Razor is just one of many mental shortcuts, but relying too much on heuristics can lead to blind spots in recognizing manipulation.
10. Chunk Down (Specifics): If Hanlon’s Razor were universally applicable, then espionage, propaganda, and corporate fraud would all be the result of mere stupidity, which ignores the layers of calculated intent in these areas.
11. Another Outcome: Whether through incompetence or malice, the result is often the same—damage is done. Therefore, focusing solely on intent distracts from the need for accountability.
12. Change Frame Size: A single bureaucratic blunder might be due to incompetence, but a consistent pattern of failures suggests something more coordinated than mere stupidity.
13. Apply to the Opposite: If malice were always disregarded in favor of incompetence, then every act of corruption or exploitation could be excused as a mistake, making it impossible to hold anyone responsible.
14. Exaggerate: If Hanlon’s Razor were an absolute truth, then no one would ever be held accountable for anything, since we could always assume stupidity rather than malevolence, no matter how much evidence suggests otherwise.
Likewise Occam's Razor:
1. Redefine: Occam’s Razor is not a law of nature but a heuristic that prioritizes simplicity, which does not always equate to accuracy.
2. Counter-Example: Plate tectonics provided a more complex explanation for continental drift than earlier static Earth models, yet it accurately described geological phenomena like earthquakes and mountain formation, proving that simplicity is not always the best indicator of truth.
3. Consequence: If we always applied Occam’s Razor rigidly, we might dismiss deeper causes simply because they require more explanation, leading to oversimplified and misleading conclusions.
4. Alternative Cause: Simplicity in explanation often arises from missing information; what seems like the simplest answer may just be the result of incomplete understanding.
5. Apply to Self: If Occam’s Razor were always the best approach, then the principle itself would be suspect because it assumes the simplest explanation is usually correct, which is itself an oversimplification.
6. Intentional Reframing: Rather than prioritizing the simplest explanation, it’s more useful to prioritize the most coherent and evidence-based explanation, even if it involves complexity.
7. Hierarchy of Criteria: While Occam’s Razor is useful for practical problem-solving, deeper philosophical, historical, and scientific truths often require embracing complexity rather than reducing it.
8. Metaphor/Analogy: A well-made watch is intricate and complex; assuming the simplest mechanism would work just as well ignores the need for precision in function.
9. Chunk Up (Generalization): Occam’s Razor is just one of many decision-making tools, but critical thinking requires more than just seeking the simplest path—it requires evaluating all available data.
10. Chunk Down (Specifics): If Occam’s Razor were always the best approach, then quantum mechanics, and encryption systems would all be invalid because they require intricate explanations.
11. Another Outcome: Whether an explanation is simple or complex, the goal is truth; prioritizing simplicity over accuracy can lead to misinterpretations and dogmatic thinking.
12. Change Frame Size: Occam’s Razor might work well for small-scale problems, but for larger systems—like geopolitics or economics—oversimplification can lead to dangerous misunderstandings.
13. Apply to the Opposite: If complexity were always assumed to be unnecessary, then no one would ever investigate deeper causes, and all historical events could be reduced to single-variable explanations, which is rarely true.
14. Exaggerate: If Occam’s Razor were absolute, then all nuanced theories would be dismissed outright, and the world’s mysteries could be explained with childlike simplicity, regardless of contradictory evidence.
Don't underestimate the willingness and capability of malicious sorts to manipulate the incompetent.
Or vice versa
GB Shaw wrote in English, but he was Irish, not English.
Occam's razor supersedes Hanlon's. Neither is foolproof.