Scientafic!

This is Newton’s flaming laser sword (or Alder’s razor), which encapsulates the important scientific principle of empiricism: science is based on evidence derived from experiments or observations.

This is Hitchen’s razor (named after Christopher Hitchen), which emphasizes that the burden of proof lies with the one who makes the claim. Otherwise anyone can make up a wild, unsubstantiated claim and force others to find evidence to disprove it.

This is the Sagan standard (popularized by Carl Sagan), which builds upon the principle of scientific skepticism. It adds that the bigger the claim, the more and better evidence you need to support it.

This is Popper’s falsifiability criterion (named after Karl Popper) and is central to what science stands for. A scientific hypothesis cannot just be supported by evidence, it must also be falsifiable and refutable. It must be theoretically possible to disprove the hypothesis with experiments or observations. For instance, a hypothesis that says Martians live on Mars but become undetectable every time we try to look for them is unfalsifiable.

This is Hanlon’s razor (named after Robert Hanlon, which he submitted to Murphy’s Law Book Two: More Reasons Why Things Go Wrong!, published in 1980), which simply says, do not assume that people’s bad actions come from bad intentions. Instead, just assume that they are stupid. It is much more satisfying.

This is Occam’s razor (named after William of Ockham), which epitomizes the principle of parsimony. Simpler explanations, those requiring fewer assumptions, are more often correct. This is because assumptions (statements not based on hard evidence) stand on shaky ground and have a good chance of being false. Therefore, theories that rely on a lot of assumptions have a high chance of being false themselves.

This is Feynman’s razor (named after Richard Feynman, a great physicist and teacher). It emphasizes that true mastery of a concept or topic should allow you to teach it to a novice. Those who use too much jargon and complex terms to explain a concept or topic are often hiding their lack of real understanding.

Hume’s guillotine (named after David Hume) is Hume’s answer to the is-ought problem. “Is” statements (aka facts) describe how the world currently works; they are objective. “Ought” statements (aka values) describe how the world should work; they are moralistic. Hume concluded that you cannot use logic alone to jump from an “is” statement to an “ought” statement without incorporating some of your hidden moral value or ethical bias. Take the following for example:

• “Is” statement (fact): AI is capable of cheaply automating a variety of human jobs.
• “Ought” statement (conclusion): Therefore, companies ought to replace their employees with AI.
• Hidden “ought” statement (hidden value): Companies ought to prioritize profits over employee retention.

This is called the Instagram razor.

The duck test is actually unscientific. Hope you learned that from this quiz. Looking, swimming, and quacking like a duck simply is not enough evidence to conclude that something is “probably” a duck. Where’s the statistical testing? Furthermore, what even is a duck? How do you define one? Let’s not go around pigeon-holing every organism on earth into so-called “species” all willy-nilly.