Jump to content

Talk:Hanlon's razor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Hanlon's Razor)

formatting the lede

[edit]

@Davide King: Why not set off the adage, so it's more obvious?

This article and the adage are short, and burying the adage inside a paragraph makes it harder to find, at least for me. If it's set off as it was before your edit of 2023-12-14T12:57:13 I think it's much easier to find. Thanks for your support of Wikipedia, but I'm reverting this change. DavidMCEddy (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"date to at latest"

[edit]

User changed text

"Earlier attributions to the idea go back to at least the 18th century"

to

"Attributions of the idea date to at latest the 18th century"

This text seemed weird to me and I edit it to "There are attributions of the idea dated by the 18th century and later" AlsoWukai reverted me with edit summary "sorry you don't understand English well". I don't think this edit summary explains anything. @AlsoWukai: Assuming I indeed dont understand English, please explain the meaning "date to at latest the 18th century" in different words. In my stupid brain "at latest the 18th century" means that the 18th century is the latest date and there are no more later attributions. - Altenmann >talk 05:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just changed it to "some of the oldest attributions of the idea date to the 18th century" because the source doesn't actually explain this "at least" stuff. —Panamitsu (talk) 06:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is fine but none of you explained to stupid me what the heck "date to at latest the 18th century" means. And if one wants nitpicking, the phrase "some of the oldest attributions" is not supported by the source cited either. - Altenmann >talk 17:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It means "originate in the 18th century or earlier". —Panamitsu (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

bonhoeffer

[edit]

"Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease. Against stupidity we are defenseless"

From Dietrich Bonhoeffer's "After Ten Years" (As far as I am aware, though it may have been a different essay of his).

Is this a valid addition to the section on similar concepts? It was after Goethe and possibly even Churchill but still predates Hanlon. 2601:249:1880:3AE0:ED6B:4F5C:1CDE:F709 (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This refers only to the effects of stupidity versus evil, but doesn't address at all the Razor part of Hanlon's Razor - where Occam's Razor counsels the preference to the simpler among alternative explanations of events, Hanlon's Razor counsels one to prefer an explanation of stupidity over evil. A core point of Hanlon's Razor is advice to counter the common irrational tendency to over-perceive malice, the above quote doesn't address the evaluation and decision making process. --Noren (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A good point and in fact it applies to another other quote in our article "misunderstandings and lethargy perhaps produce more wrong.." So I gess we must delete it, because, as you said it expresses a different idea. - Altenmann >talk 16:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this could be a reasonable addition, if one can find secondary sources which connect bonhoeffer with hanlon. As I see it is numerously quoted in books. - Altenmann >talk 16:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So let me summarize: Goethe, Bonhoeffer and Hanlon compare the two causes (malice an stupidity), but all three authors consider different apects. Goethe talks about comparative effects in producing adverse events of the two. Hanlon talks about reasonable explanations of the adverse events. Bonhoeffer compare possibility of defense against the two. All three are clearly different philosophical issues. And we can put them in one page only if there is a philosophical source which puts the thee ideas together in some general discussion of malice vs. stupidity. But that would be a subject of a different article Malice and stupidity, i.e., of intentional and unintentional evildoing. - Altenmann >talk 17:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Connecting malice and stupidity is addressed in many other catch phrases, such as useful idiot, The road to hell is paved with good intentions, etc. - Altenmann >talk 17:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]