51–57 of 57 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But this time with the "Never" somewhat qualified.
The "Never" isn't literal in the original razor.
Hanlon's razor is advice about what predictions you should make (or which hypotheses you should advocate, if you like). It says that when you don't know whether something is malice or stupidity, you should never predict/theorize the former.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "Never" isn't literal in the original razor.
Yes, it is literal. Hanlon's razor is advice about what predictions you should make (or which hypotheses you should advocate, if you like). It says that when you don't know whether something is malice or stupidity, you should never predict/theorize the former.
If it's not literal, then it's argumentative hyperbole and should be interpreted as "usually" or "most often". In this case the truth of the statement is intact and can be a useful guide.
So either you're right and the saying is worthless, or I'm right and the saying retains useful meaning.
saw that coming. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it is literal. Hanlon's razor is advice about what predictions you should make (or which hypotheses you should advocate, if you like). It says that when you don't know whether something is malice or stupidity, you should never predict/theorize the former.
If the 'never' is literal, then it's attempting to establish a universal truth, and is entirely useless as that universal truth is incorrect. If it's not literal, then it's argumentative hyperbole and should be interpreted as "usually" or "most often". In this case the truth of the statement is intact and can be a useful guide. So either you're right and the saying is worthless, or I'm right and the saying retains us…
No, its not.
As a statement about predictions, its about likelihood. "Never assume malice when incompetence is plausible", even if taken literally, need not be an attempt to establish that it is universally true that when both are plausible, malice is always the correct prediction; it is a sufficient premise that there are no circumstances in which both explanatiosn are plausible where malice is more likely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the 'never' is literal, then it's attempting to establish a universal truth, and is entirely useless as that universal truth is incorrect. If it's not literal, then it's argumentative hyperbole and should be interpreted as "usually" or "most often". In this case the truth of the statement is intact and can be a useful guide. So either you're right and the saying is worthless, or I'm right and the saying retains us…
> If the 'never' is literal, then it's attempting to establish a universal truth No, its not. As a statement about predictions, its about likelihood. "Never assume malice when incompetence is plausible", even if taken literally, need not be an attempt to establish that it is universally true that when both are plausible, malice is always the correct prediction; it is a sufficient premise that there are no circumstanc…
It does NOT say "malice is plausible" it says "malice is IMPOSSIBLE, when you CAN attribute an act to stupidity."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kind of an aside, but still relevant to part of your post. Whining about the content and whining about the meta whining is part of any sufficiently old community. I can recall from communities I've managed, and from ones I've participated in there's /always/ metacommentary and metametacommentary. The best thing to do in these cases is not to engage it. But no, HN will never get past all the whiny meta and there's ver…
benbeltrain: How does that work in Discourse? lsiebert: How does that work on Metafilter?