# Straw Men, Slippery Slopes & Occam's Razors **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 26, 2004, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straw-men-slippery-slopes-occams-razors/236627 "2004-03-26T20:32:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2004, 9:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straw-men-slippery-slopes-occams-razors/236627/21 "2004-03-27T09:12:30Z")
> [@HumptysHamhole](#): > > Straw Man: This seems to be employed far too often. Agreed. IMO, some of the slower folks here seem to have latched onto this, and use it constantly, whether it is apropos or not. On the other hand, a lot of people here engage in this fallacy on a regular basis, so pointing it out isn’t _necessarily_ wrong. > [@](#): > > Slippery Slope: As I understand it the basis of empirical science is the recognition of repeatable patterns of cause and effect. So why, if I see that (B) has always followed (A) in history, can I not think that it is likely that (B) will follow (A) in the future? When someone does this they are always accused of Slippery Slope. Shouldn’t this term only apply to cases in which we have no evidence (historical or emperical) that the reaction might happen? Yes, that’s overused here as well, but it _does_ exist. Here’s my favorite slippery-slope argument, uttered by none other than The Terminator himself, Schwarzenegger: “In San Francisco, it is license for marriage of same sex. Maybe the next thing is another city that hands out licenses for assault weapons and someone else hands out licenses for selling drugs, I mean you can’t do that.” A common slippery-slope fallacy I see on SDMB frequently relates to gun ownership, and goes along the lines of: “If the gun opponents succeed in banning assault weapons, soon they will achieve their objective of banning _all_ guns, everywhere.” > [@](#): > > Occam’s Razor: This really isn’t a logical fallacy and I think it is not only overly used but it may be wrong at its inception. Who says the simplest explanation is the best? You’re right, it’s not a fallacy, it’s a heuristic. (That’s something I learned here on SDMB:)) One can’t _prove_ that extraneous entities don’t exist; it simply makes more sense to assume that they don’t, all other things being equal. It is an eminently practical guideline, and the only alternative is the mental chaos of assuming an infinite number of extraneous entities. You don’t really want to do that, do you? > [@](#): > > We may wish for things to be simple beacause it makes them eaiser to understand but our wishes don’t reflect reality. Shouldn’t the razor only be used when we have two competing thoeries, neither of which are more plausable than the other, then we use the simplest only beacause it is easier to understand – not beacuse it is more true. Absolutely. It can only be correctly applied if all other things are equal. > [@](#): > > Why do complaints of other logical fallacies never turn up? They do. The most common I’ve seen is _argumentum ad hominem_, closely followed by _argumentum ad populum_, _non sequitur_, _false dichotomy_, _anecdotal evidence_, etc., and my personal pet peeve… [The Extended Analogy](http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#analogy) > [@](#): > > The fallacy of the Extended Analogy often occurs when some suggested general rule is being argued over. The fallacy is to assume that mentioning two different situations, in an argument about a general rule, constitutes a claim that those situations are analogous to each other. > > Here’s a real example from an online debate about anti-cryptography legislation: > > “I believe it is always wrong to oppose the law by breaking it.” > > “Such a position is odious: it implies that you would not have supported Martin Luther King.” > > “Are you saying that cryptography legislation is as important as the struggle for Black liberation? How dare you!” Sound familiar? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2004, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straw-men-slippery-slopes-occams-razors/236627/22 "2004-03-27T13:51:05Z")
> [@js\_africanus](#): > > It’s my understanding that the history of science is chock full of examples of where parsimony in explanation ended up being correct. (No specific cites.) I recall one video of a shrink who had to deal with a self-abuser. This poor guy had beaten himself so badly that he had permanently disfigured his face. You could hypothesize about his Id, or about his childhood, or about his wiring; alternatively, you could hypothesise operant conditioning as the cause. It is certainly the simplest: He wants attention, he randomly hits himself one day, he gets attention, the process snowballs. Using that hypothesis, the shrink solved this poor man’s problem in about a day. I’m confused – why is operant conditioning the more parsimonious explanation? > [@](#): > > I will grant the idea that testing Occam’s Razor in a laboratory may be nigh impossible. _Maybe_. But, and I wish I had specific cites for this (for my own benefit at the very least), it seems that it’s success generating more correct theories would move it from the realm of metaphysical to that of empirically verified. > > (Is _metaphysical_ the right word?) Oh, I don’t think it’s metaphysical; rather, in my idiosyncratic half-educated way, I see it as one of the axioms on which most modern scientists depend, even if they don’t formally consider it so. Along with, - There is an objective reality - My senses provide a means to learn about that objective reality - If P is true, Not P is false - Similar causes have similar effects Occam’s Razor is used to achieve scientific results. In your example re: the self-abuser (which wasn’t at all what I thought it was going to be, by the way 🙂 ), there’s another theory: this guy was cursed by a demon who really, really hated the concept of operant conditioning. Once the psychiatrist started going on and on about operant conditioning, the demon fled. What test can we design to disprove this hypothesis? Like many cases, there’s no such test we can design. However, operant conditioning doesn’t require us to accept on faith the concept of an imperceptible demon who hates operant conditioning and who can persuade people to injure themselves; therefore, OC provides a better explanation than the demon-hypothesis. Without Occam’s Razor, we can be stymied by silly arguments like the demon one: we’ll have no real intellectual tools for choosing between two hypotheses that are equally borne out by observed facts. Oh, and **Metacom** , based purely on your excerpts from that thread here, it does look to me as if you used “straw man” correctly. But I ain’t venturing into another religion thread to read it in context. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2004, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straw-men-slippery-slopes-occams-razors/236627/23 "2004-03-27T14:44:07Z")
All I can say is that “Occam’s Razor” (or, rather, an extremely vulgarized version of it) is constantly used by the self-described skeptics here as a neat and easy way to dismiss any proposition that does not fit with their belief system. (I love the SMDB skeptics dearly, but we do not see eye to eye on paranormal matters. :)) Parodized (but only slightly!) example: Believer: My brother heard a ghost. Then he saw it. Then he got the ghost on tape and took over 50 photos. And video. There were 20 witnesses present at the time, who signed an affidavit swearing that they heard and saw it themselves. All of this is posted at (link). Skeptic: Which is more likely? That what said is true, thereby overturning 548 years of Science, or that he’s a liar (or insane!), the recordings and photos are forgeries (or simply accidents!), and the 20 others are all liars too (or it could be group insanity!). By _Occam’s Razor_, the latter must be true! Occam’s Razor is the principle that one should not increase the terms of an explanation unnecessarily. Sadly, the skeptics will propose a 100 unneccessary terms before accepting a simple explanation that clashes with their iron catechism. ---
**Author:** ![HumptysHamhole](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f0a364/32.png) [@HumptysHamhole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HumptysHamhole)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2004, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straw-men-slippery-slopes-occams-razors/236627/24 "2004-03-27T17:01:33Z")
It seems to me then that Occam’s Razor in the sense that most people are defining it in this post is really a matter of evidence. Am I wrong. Here is an example given: > [@](#): > > For example, I observe that when a match is dragged across a rough surface, it bursts into flame. I read about this phenomenon and discover that it’s a chemical reaction brought about by the application of friction to the chemicals in the match-head. and > [@](#): > > there’s another hypothesis, which is that Haephaestes, the ancient god of the forge, looks kindly on matches and considers the music of their being drawn across rough surfaces to be an homage to him which He rewards with His holy flame. You believe in the first hypothesis not because it is simpler but because you have more empirical evidence in favor of it. Is this concept: > [@](#): > > When a match is struck on the striking surface of its box, the friction caused by the glass powder rubbing together produces enough heat to turn a very small amount of the red phosphorus into white phosphorus, which catches fire in air. This small amount of heat is enough to start a chemical reaction that uses the oxidizing agent to produce oxygen gas. The heat and oxygen gas then cause the sulfur to burst into flame, which then catches the wood of the match to catch on fire. really all that simple? Is it simpler than the Haephaestes hypotheses? I say no – it is not SIMPLER – but it is more plausable because it can be proven to me with some simple experements. I can observe the first hypothesis in action and can produce repeatable experaments that show it in action – I can not do this with the second hypothesis – this is why we believe the first hypothesis, right? In conclusion it looks like we are using Occam’s Razor to mean this: The hypothesis with more scientific (observable) evidence is the better hypothesis. If this is how the Razor is going to be employed then it has nothing to do with simplicity but rather with provability and probability. If that is the case then Occam’s Razor is not needed – as the rules of the scientific method already guide us in relation to those principles. ---
**Author:** ![MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bb73d2/32.png) [@MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MC_Master_of_Ceremonies)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2004, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straw-men-slippery-slopes-occams-razors/236627/25 "2004-03-27T17:10:18Z")
Occam’s razor really does have very little to do with evidence; that you accept a theory because it’s predictions match what is observed has nothing to do with Occam’s razor. As I said before Occam’s razor means that you do not add terms to a theory without the need to add them. ---
**Author:** ![WernhamHogg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a587f6/32.png) [@WernhamHogg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WernhamHogg)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2004, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straw-men-slippery-slopes-occams-razors/236627/26 "2004-03-27T17:16:44Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > All I can say is that “Occam’s Razor” (or, rather, an extremely vulgarized version of it) is constantly used by the self-described skeptics here as a neat and easy way to dismiss any proposition that does not fit with their belief system. > > (I love the SMDB skeptics dearly, but we do not see eye to eye on paranormal matters. :)) > > Parodized (but only slightly!) example: > > Believer: My brother heard a ghost. Then he saw it. Then he got the ghost on tape and took over 50 photos. And video. There were 20 witnesses present at the time, who signed an affidavit swearing that they heard and saw it themselves. All of this is posted at (link). > > Skeptic: Which is more likely? That what said is true, thereby overturning 548 years of Science, or that he’s a liar (or insane!), the recordings and photos are forgeries (or simply accidents!), and the 20 others are all liars too (or it could be group insanity!). By _Occam’s Razor_, the latter must be true! > > Occam’s Razor is the principle that one should not increase the terms of an explanation unnecessarily. Sadly, the skeptics will propose a 100 unneccessary terms before accepting a simple explanation that clashes with their iron catechism. If you think back a decade or so, you might remember that a well known circus had “a live unicorn,” which turned out to be a goat with a horn soldered to it’s skull. It doesn’t matter than literally thousands and thousands of people saw the “unicorn,” or that it was relentlessly photographed and videotaped. Even with thousands of witnesses and dozens of photographs and videotapes, I would have decided that it was not a unicorn, because (a) the eyewitness testimony and evidence only indicates that the circus had something _resembling_ a unicorn, not that there was a live unicorn, and (b) nothing like a unicorn had ever appeared before, and there is no evidence unicorns ever existed. Occam’s razor would apply here, as it does to your case. The “simplest explanation” is that it’s a hoax and the people were duped, because the alternative “simple” explanation requires a gazillion “unneccessary terms,” such as the existence of creatures that have evaded detection for all of human history, until now, and grossly defy the laws of science as we currently understand them. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2004, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straw-men-slippery-slopes-occams-razors/236627/27 "2004-03-27T18:09:49Z")
> [@js\_africanus](#): > > I will grant the idea that testing Occam’s Razor in a laboratory may be nigh impossible. _Maybe_. But, and I wish I had specific cites for this (for my own benefit at the very least), it seems that it’s success generating more correct theories would move it from the realm of metaphysical to that of empirically verified. But it doesn’t generate anything. It is a selective agent. Suppose we had two theories of selective agents, one which was the razor, and one which had a preference for multiplicity. How would we select between them? ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2004, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straw-men-slippery-slopes-occams-razors/236627/28 "2004-03-27T18:32:08Z")
> [@skutir](#): > > Occam’s razor would apply here, as it does to your case. The “simplest explanation” is that it’s a hoax and the people were duped, because the alternative “simple” explanation requires a gazillion “unneccessary terms,” such as the existence of creatures that have evaded detection for all of human history, until now, and grossly defy the laws of science as we currently understand them. Wow, thanks for coming and providing an actual example of bad skeptic logic. Acutally, the parsimonious explanation is that ghosts have been “detected” by the human eye and ear since the dawn of history and have now–whadyaknow?–appread on tape, film, etc. Thank you! ---
**Author:** ![WernhamHogg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a587f6/32.png) [@WernhamHogg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WernhamHogg)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2004, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straw-men-slippery-slopes-occams-razors/236627/29 "2004-03-27T19:41:06Z")
So you’re “parsimonious,” eh? So tell me what kind of scientific rigor you apply to these detections of ghosts since the dawn of history. Do you have a time machine and a ghost-meter so you can fly back to the dawn of history and verify that the ghost referred to in some age-old diary is real? And what about photographs? How do you determine their authenticity? Do you have special scanning software that can tell the difference between a genuine apparition and some guy in a sheet? Do you look for ghost particles at the scene of the sighting? Really, you’re parsimonious scientific-mindedness are laudable, but I want details. How do you separate a “report” or a “rumor” from a bonafide “detection”? Sorry for the “bad skeptic logic,” but I stand by my unicorn analogy. The appearance of something isn’t proof that it exists. I’ve seen movies with ghosts, unicorns, dragons, hobbits, and flying cars, and I know that things can be realistically faked in a photograph or a video clip. There is more to “detection” than meets the eye. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2004, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straw-men-slippery-slopes-occams-razors/236627/30 "2004-03-27T20:00:38Z")
> [@skutir](#): > > Sorry for the “bad skeptic logic,” but I stand by my unicorn analogy. The appearance of something isn’t proof that it exists. I’ve seen movies with ghosts, unicorns, dragons, hobbits, and flying cars, and I know that things can be realistically faked in a photograph or a video clip. There is more to “detection” than meets the eye. Great! And I’m saying that no matter how much research is done, no matter how many witnesses there are to an event, no matter how sober and how credible a person making a claim may be, the skeptics will multiply entities without shame so as to preserve their worldview. Sounds like you’re a member of the crew! ---
**Author:** ![WernhamHogg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a587f6/32.png) [@WernhamHogg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WernhamHogg)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2004, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straw-men-slippery-slopes-occams-razors/236627/31 "2004-03-27T20:46:34Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Great! And I’m saying that no matter how much research is done, no matter how many witnesses there are to an event, no matter how sober and how credible a person making a claim may be, the skeptics will multiply entities without shame so as to preserve their worldview. Sounds like you’re a member of the crew! Nice strawman. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2004, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straw-men-slippery-slopes-occams-razors/236627/32 "2004-03-27T22:08:51Z")
> [@HumptysHamhole](#): > > It seems to me then that Occam’s Razor in the sense that most people are defining it in this post is really a matter of evidence. > > … > > You believe in the first hypothesis not because it is simpler but because you have more empirical evidence in favor of it. Is this concept: No, the evidence would be exactly the same in both cases, and whichever explanation adds extra entities is the one to be discarded. I’ll give you a good example that we went back and forth on with our friend **Lekatt** in another thread: It was pointed out that there is empirical evidence of a correllation between the presence of brainwaves and the subjective feelings reported by people, and further, that the brainwave activity in various portions of the brain _corresponds_ to various different feelings reported by people. Now, **Lekatt** maintained that brainwaves do not originate in the brain, but originate from some other realm, and are somehow placed in the brain by a supernatural process. His assertion was that the brainwaves are not travelling _from_ the brain, but rather _to_ it. In both cases, the empirical evidence was exactly equal - the brain waves are measured in very close proximity to the brain. **Lekatt** provided no additional empirical evidence for the supernatural explanation. In this case, Occam’s Razor dictates that we accept the explanation that _doesn’t_ add a superfluous supernatural process, since the evidence in both cases is equivalent. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2004, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straw-men-slippery-slopes-occams-razors/236627/33 "2004-03-27T22:23:02Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > All I can say is that “Occam’s Razor” (or, rather, an extremely vulgarized version of it) is constantly used by the self-described skeptics here as a neat and easy way to dismiss any proposition that does not fit with their belief system. Hasty generalization. > [@](#): > > Skeptic: Which is more likely? That what said is true, thereby overturning 548 years of Science, or that he’s a liar (or insane!), the recordings and photos are forgeries (or simply accidents!), and the 20 others are all liars too (or it could be group insanity!). By _Occam’s Razor_, the latter must be true! Strawman. (Yes, it really _is_ this time.) ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2004, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straw-men-slippery-slopes-occams-razors/236627/34 "2004-03-27T22:39:05Z")
Ooh, ooh! Here’s a REALLY good strawman, from this thread: > **[What would happen if the record industry went ka-put?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=246292)** > > I can’t believe I’m posting in GD So let’s say the RIAA is right about home taping killing the music industry. Did I say home taping? I meant P2P networks.(1) I think it would be a good thing for music. Sure, Britney Spears might be out of a... > [@](#): > > * * * > > ## Originally Posted by blowero My point was that honesty does not suddenly kick in at some arbitrary price. People do not say, “Oh, if it’s $15, I’ll steal it, but if it’s $12, I won’t.” At least not rational, moral people. If the industry comes crashing down due to theft, little price breaks will not save it. > > Mr2001: **Your false assumption–that people who download music illegally are just dirty, no-good thieves who can never be expected to pay for music under any circumstances** –is the reason online music sales have taken this long to get off the ground. Now THERE’S some juicy straw. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2004, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straw-men-slippery-slopes-occams-razors/236627/35 "2004-03-27T22:48:15Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Strawman. (Yes, it really _is_ this time.) Or excluded middle? Since there is a possibility that they saw and photographed a phenomenon which they honestly believed to be a ghost with 20 witnesses, but were unable to repeat the conditions to seek verification of the phenomenon or perform additional study. FTR I do not believe in ghosts, just that my scenario is an additional legitimate possibility. Unlikely, but a possibility. ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2004, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straw-men-slippery-slopes-occams-razors/236627/36 "2004-03-27T23:54:58Z")
Funny, because what I was thinking as I read the OP is already playing out in this thread. In general, we don’t bring up Occam’s Razor in debate, but we do debate it’s meaning constantly. There are a number of good threads if you do a search. As for Straw Man: It’s just attacking an argument other than the opponent’s strongest. Very often you’ll see that in an argument someone will create their own straw man by claiming the other has just made one. Straw Man is thrown about a bit loosely but then again, so are straw man arguments. ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straw-men-slippery-slopes-occams-razors/236627/37 "2004-03-28T00:02:14Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Ooh, ooh! Here’s a REALLY good strawman, from this thread: > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=246292](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=246292) > > Now THERE’S some juicy straw. 😃 At first I thought this was hypothetical and that the degree of strawishness was just to set in bold relief what a straw man was exactly. I see now that it wasn’t. Doh. ---
**Author:** ![HumptysHamhole](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f0a364/32.png) [@HumptysHamhole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HumptysHamhole)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straw-men-slippery-slopes-occams-razors/236627/38 "2004-03-28T19:30:37Z")
> [@](#): > > No, the evidence would be exactly the same in both cases, and whichever explanation adds extra entities is the one to be discarded. So the Razor is to use the simplest explanation of the evidence at hand – if that is what you are saying then it is starting to make sense to me now. That was the most helpful explanation I have read **Blowero** , thamks. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straw-men-slippery-slopes-occams-razors/236627.md?page=1)