The Razors of Scrutiny

Editor’s Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Roots of Liberty, and was shared here at Substack January 2022. Updated, expanded, and appended.

Highly charged events often produce highly questionable assertions, allegations, opinions masquerading as facts, and armchair erudition. We are inundated with such even in quiet times, and that inundation becomes deluge when things get "interesting." A discerning reader may become overwhelmed in his efforts to separate the wheat from the chaff, the signal from the noise, and the worthwhile from the delusional or deceitful.

Fortunately, a few simple tools can contribute greatly to our ability to do so.

Seven hundred years ago, Franciscan friar William of Ockham offered us:

• Occam's Razor: The simplest answer is usually the correct one.

Rather more recently, there emerged this ditty, possibly inspired by science fiction writer Robert Heinlein, who'd have penned it during the mid-latter half of the twentieth century:

• Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Even more recently, writer and infamous gadfly Christopher Hitchens penned:

• Hitchens' Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

During his landmark television series Cosmos, Carl Sagan popularized an aphorism that's been floating around erudite circles for a century or two:

• The Sagan Standard: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (ECREE).

And, finally, back in the days of colonial America, Benjamin Franklin wrote, in the guise of his Poor Richard persona, an English version of an old Gaelic proverb, Cha rùn agus rùn aig triùir e - “It’s not a secret if three people know it.” This last doesn't have a popular name, so I'll dub it…

• The Franklin Standard: Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead.

Together, these five fine thinkers: Occam, Hanlon, Hitchens, Sagan, and Franklin, give us a set of informal tests for ideas and assertions that we encounter in our daily lives. This isn't to say that a notion that doesn't survive them is necessarily invalid, just that, as a starting point, our reaction to that notion, whether it be approval or skepticism, would be well served by their application, and we would be well served in challenging our own cognitive biases by applying them liberally.

So, carry them with you, and use them well. Unlike a Gillette, Bic, or Schick, they won't get duller with use.

---

For those who feel there are never enough tools in the box, I offer a few more:

• Hume's Guillotine: What ought to be cannot be deduced from what is. Or... Causes must be able to produce the effect assigned to them.

• Alder's Razor, AKA Newton's Flaming Laser Sword: If something cannot be settled by experiment or observation, then it is not worthy of debate.

• Popper's Falsifiability Principle: For a theory to be considered scientific, it must be falsifiable.

• The Duck Test: If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

• The Zebra Principle: When you hear hoofbeats behind you, don't expect to see a zebra.

• And a conversational lubricant:

• Grice's Razor: Address what the speaker actually meant, instead of addressing the literal meaning of what he actually said, AKA, "You know what I meant."

---

And, for those who enjoy bits of ironic “wisdom” from popular culture, I present to you a batch gleaned from across the years.

The Joy Behar Rule: Other people’s misdeeds only matter if they work in your political favor. Ms. Behar gave Bill Clinton and Teddy Kennedy passes on their misdeeds involving young women because she liked their policies and politics. Such is the norm in talking-head punditry today, on both sides of the aisle.

The Seinfeld Corollary: “I don’t bother remembering what doesn’t interest me.” A solipsistic take on George Santayana’s timeless aphorism about remembering history.

The Franco Addendum: “What’s behind me is not important.” Whereas The Seinfeld Corollary is about laziness and disinterest in the lessons of history, the Franco Addendum actively and arrogantly dismisses them.

The Sarah Silverman Alibi: When one’s apoplectic rage leads to an erroneous jumping to conclusions, the rage excuses the fallout and takes the place of a proper mea culpa. If your high dudgeon is high enough, you not only never have to say you’re sorry, you get to keep the messaging you tried to convey, facts notwithstanding. See Dan Rather’s “Fake But Accurate.”

The Tyson Tenet: This one’s a filter for all you Internet warriors. Born of Mike Tyson’s aphorism “everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth,” the Tyson Tenet reads: “Write every internet comment as if you are talking, by yourself, face-to-face, to Mike Tyson.” In other words, don’t let your fingers type a check your face can’t cash.

The Fonzie Syndrome: My most recent coining, this speaks of our preference for defending old statements and opinions, no matter if they were hastily and poorly conceived, and no matter if subsequent information invalidated them. Born of the psychological phenomenon known as cognitive dissonance and of our aversion to feeling shame or public humiliation, it’s one of the most toxic elements in public discourse. It doesn’t help that people will, like taunting toddlers, dog-pile on such admissions of error, even if they’re born of information not available at the time o the original pronouncement.