Talk:Philosophical razor/Archive 1

Deletion proposal
This article lacks any citation to sources of merit. Unless citations to acceptable sources are added, I propose the article be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.119.68 (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't delete it, but instead specify who uses this terminology of "razor" in philosophy, even if it is only a few people considered "unimportant" by some subjective measure of judgment. Just because it is likely an unpopular word usage, does not mean it is illegitimate and shouldn't deserve acknowledgment. --— sloth_monkey 15:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well who uses it then? Apparently nobody does. That doesn't make it "unimportant", that makes it plain wrong. PunktUndPunktUndKommaStrich (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I vote not to delete. I was well-aware of this use of the term 'razor' before coming here, and the selection of well-known razors listed here are very well chosen. In fact the reason I actually came to the talk page in the first place was to say so. --82.69.54.207 (talk) 02:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I say keep it. The term is not that unpopular, and having it here is of value RobinInTexas (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete it, it's not a technical philosophical term; just a metaphor used by some authors in naming a principle ("Occam's razor" is the principle of ontological parsimony). Should there be an article on "philosophical guillotines" because the is-ought gap is sometimes called "Hume's guillotine"? Treating these as if they were standard terminology is confusing for the uninitiated. 182.48.140.64 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I vote to keep, even if just as an interesting, humorous stub. Maybe add a disclaimer: "this is not 100% philosophy."jorgeccoxrambo — Preceding unsigned comment added by JorgeCCoxRambo (talk • contribs) 20:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I vote: Delete The word is a casual way that some people have of expressing themselves, it is not a technical term, it has no citation, I agree with the views above that think it should be deleted.GretDrabba (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Most certainly delete. Apart from Occam's razor itself, and Popper's falsification principle (which is a real, philosophical doctrine, although it is rejected by most actual philosophers of science, and no-one calls it a "razor") the others are more like internet memes than accepted philosophical concepts. Anyone actually seeking to learn about philosophy will be thoroughly misled by this. Whoever wrote this does not know the difference between the scholarly discipline of philosophy and bullshitting on the internet, and are attempting to spread their ignorance to others. Treharne (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right that the academic literature does not have references to "razors" as a broad concept. If it does, and I'm missing it, we need a citation for this. I tried to add in qualifiers to the article, but I got hit with an "original research" revert by . I've sadly only just noticed this now. How are we to provide a citation for the fact that the literature does not exist? It isn't especially easy to cite something that doesn't exist because it is entirely irrelevant to the field of academic philosophy and is so irrelevant that nothing is even written to say that it is irrelevant. Surely, there must be a way to note the lack of literature within the rules of Wiki. I think it is extremely relevant to note within the article that "razors" as a broad concept only exist informally online. I don't agree that the article should be deleted, however, because this is a concept that does indeed see usage informally and is notable. Perhaps we just note that the term sees use in online spaces without explicitly stating that it doesn't in academic spaces to avoid original research? Is this acceptable? Side note: I don't appreciate you following me around Wiki just because we had a disagreement Snowded. My name is pseudonym (talk)


 * Another vote for delete I'm a PhD student in philosophy, and I can say with confidence that I have never heard "razor" used as a general term. The examples presented in this article don't seem to support that usage in philosophy. Hanlon and Hitchens aren't philosophers. The reference to "Hume's razor" is just by way of comparing it to Occam's; it doesn't suggest that "philosophical razors" are a kind of thing. Anyway, even if there are other examples of "x's razor," it's original research to then infer that a razor is a kind of thing and that these references aren't just being made to compare whatever someone is writing about to Occam's razor. The one citation given to define what a "razor" is in philosophy only discusses Occam's razor. This page will only have the effect of misleading people into thinking that there's a real taxonomy out there in philosophical literature that categorizes Hume next to Occam, Hanlon, and Hitchens.76.98.100.238 (talk) 13:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * A vote for delete The sources are incredibly poor even for loose philosophical abstractions. Some of the pages mentioned have sources that straight up don't refer to the abstraction as a 'razor'. Most of the pages are created in 2020-2021. I can only assume a group of people are trying to push this idea of philosophical adages as 'razors' which is frankly ridiculous. 86.41.240.167 (talk) 06:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Problem with Occam's razor
This page says that Occam's razor says to choose the explanation that requires the least assumptions. That doesn't make sense, because every two competing explanations ever make the same number of assumptions. If you say of one theory that is assumes something, you can say of the other that it is assuming the opposite. So how do we resolve this? 80.100.229.110 (talk) 10:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Two competing assumptions can have more than one assumption. If a husband murders their wife while they are sleeping in bed, and I believe it was the neighbour. I have to assume he broke into the house, broke into their room, etc. Also I don't know what you mean by the opposite? They're simply competing theories, not necessarily the inverse of one another. Occam's razor is the idea that the most likely explanation is usually the correct one. People have used the term "simple" which is incorrect because simple doesn't denote likelihood or may not even be relevant. In the above case the woman was choked to death, you might reason it was with the husband's bare hands or with a pillow. Both are equally simple, but given that she has marks all over her neck, strangulation is more likely not simpler 86.41.240.167 (talk) 06:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Missing Chatton's anti-razor
If we're going to have a razor page, why not include Chatton's anti-razor? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor#Anti-razors and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Chatton Dorgmon (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:BOLD is the answer here! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Rename and redirect to "List of philosophical razors"?
There is little prospect for content in the article beyond a definition and a list of purported razors. Also, the article in its current form gives a possibly misleading impression that Philosophical Razors are a standard and accepted concept, rather than a tongue-in-cheek mode of naming comparatively obscure (relative to Occam's) heuristics, and presenting it as a list seems less definitive a claim. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ps. I added "purported", "humorous" and (in the link) "tongue-in-cheek" to the lede but calling it a "list of purported philosophical razors" might also be useful in giving a sense of perspective. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:BCA, and I have reverted your additions as unsourced opinion. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Popper's falsification principle
Popper's falsifiability is not a "razor" as defined. It is a statement of his approach to epistemology. It should be removed. SPECIFICO talk 12:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Razors are approaches to epsitemology, so Popper's principle is a razor. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This list page strikes me as poorly sourced and silent/confused as to what characteristic qualifies an item as a "philosophical razor". It's not clear that the term is widely used, certainly not among philosophers. The distinction I was raising -- and note that I did not edit the article wrt Popper -- is that his is a meta-philosophical point whereas the one I did delete appears to refer to the practice of scientific investigation. I don't that the article provides a definition, let alone a convincingly sourced definition, aganist which we could test any element or potential addition to the list. In this respect the article fails at least one of the "razors" on its own list. Do you have a source for your Razors are approaches to epsitemology? I don't think that's quite correct. It appears to conflate epistemology, the basis of knowledge, with science and practical reason. Positivists and experimental scientists might regard them as the same, but that is by no means the only view among philosophers or even among physicists, e.g.  At any rate, we have hundreds of bad list articles on Wikipedia, and this is one of the less important ones, so it will likely remain in its current state for quite a while. Thanks for your reply. SPECIFICO talk 22:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)