Five philosophical razors for clearer thinking

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is a Wikipedia article titled Philosophical razor which defines one as:

 

“a principle or rule of thumb that allows one to eliminate (shave off) unlikely explanations for a phenomenon or avoid unnecessary actions.

 

The best known is Occam’s razor. Wikipedia says that:

 

“In philosophy, Occam’s razor is the problem-solving principle that recommends searching for explanations with the smallest possible set of elements. It is also known as the principle of parsimony or the law of parsimony.”

 

There is a more specific principle called Hanlon’s razor that instead says:  

 

“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”

 

On March 23, 2026 I blogged about it in a post titled Stupidity can explain a lot of behavior.

 

And there is Alder’s razor:

 

“If something cannot be settled by experiment or observation, then it is not worthy of debate.”

 

There is Grice’s razor:

 

“Address what someone meant to say instead of the literal meaning of the words.”

 

There is Hitchens’ razor:

 

“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

 

An article at Life Lessons is titled 9 Philosophical razors you need to know. Another article by Chris Meyer at The Mind Collection is titled 11 Philosophical razors to simplify your life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

How we describe the solar system is a good example of Occam’s razor. As shown simply above, once we had an earth-centered view using circular orbits. For Geocentrism Wikipedia says:

 

“The resultant system, which eventually came to be widely accepted in the west, seems unwieldy to modern astronomers; each planet required an epicycle revolving on a deferent, offset by an equant which was different for each planet. It predicted various celestial motions, including the beginning and end of retrograde motion, to within a maximum error of 10 degrees, considerably better than without the equant.”

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The modern, simpler, heliocentric version, is shown above. It has elliptical orbits that result from gravitational attraction.

 

 

The razor was adapted from an image at OpenClipart.  The Ptolemaic model and solar system were adapted from Wikimedia Commons.

 

 

An excellent series of articles on the writer’s craft from Lorelei Lingard in the magazine Perspectives in Medical Education

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are lots of mediocre articles about writing, but fewer excellent ones. An article by Lorelei Lingard in Perspectives in Medical Education on April 8, 2015 (Volume 4, Number 2, pages 79 and 80) is titled The writer’s craft and introduces a series. She has a PhD in rhetoric and is a professor. Articles in the series cover topics ranging from titles, to verbs, to sentences to paragraphs.

 

One on April 9, 2015 Volume 4 Number 2, pages 53 and 54 is titled Enlisting the power of the verb. A second on January 26, 2016 (Volume 5 Number 1, pages 39 to 41) is titled Get control of your commas. A third on May 23, 2016 Volume 5 Number 3, pages 179 to 181 is titled Bonfire red titles. A fourth on December 8, 2016 (Volume 6, Number 1, pages 51 to 53) is titled Mastering the Sentence. A fifth on April 10, 2019 Volume 10 Number 2, pages 98 to 100 is titled From semi-conscious to strategic paragraphing. A sixth on December 18, 2019 (Volume 18, Number 9, pages 57 to 59) is titled Pace, pause & silence: Creating emphasis & suspense in your writing. A seventh on November 3, 2021 (Volume 10, Number 6, pages 347 to 351) is titled When English clashes with other languages: Insights and cautions from the Writer’s Craft series. And an eighth on March 8, 2022 (Volume 11, Number 4, pages 228 to 231) is titled Writing for the reader: Using reader expectation principles to maximize clarity.

 

For example, in Bonfire red titles Lorelei says:

 

“….A title is like a front door: it serves as advertising for what’s inside your research paper. Have a look at the last title you wrote for an academic manuscript. Is it a red door or a white one? Does it draw readers into your work or encourage them to walk by?

 

Titles must achieve two goals: quickly grab the reader and faithfully describe the paper. This likely explains our common addiction to the ‘colon title,’ in which what precedes the colon is meant to be catchy and what follows is meant to be descriptive.”

 

The image of a writer was adapted from one at the Library of Congress.

 

 

Ten simple rules for engaging in clear communication

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is a very useful article by Brittney G. Borowiec at PLoS Computational Biology in July 2023 titled Ten simple rules for scientists engaging in science communication. But those more generally useful rules for planning are:

 

 1]  Define your goals

 2]  Figure out who and where your audience is

 3]  Pick an arena that suits your goals and plays to your strengths

 4]  Come up with a clear headline message 

 5]  Beware of jargon

 6]  Show your audience why they should care

 7]  Tell your audience how to react 

 8]  Get some feedback, evaluate, and improve

 9]  Consider equity, diversity, and inclusion

10] Remember that these rules are interdependent

 

She notes that:

 

"There are several excellent templates for crafting an effective science communication message (The COMPASS Message Box, Olson’s And/But/Therefore, the Union of Concerned Scientists’ basic science/newfinding/implications approach, etc.)"

 

The glossy ten was adapted from this image at Openclipart.

 

SpaceX Starship rocket has a "rapid unscheduled disassembly"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The SpaceX Starship is a very impressive, 390-foot-high, super-heavy launch vehicle. Minutes after its test launch on April 20, 2023 the first, unmanned Starship exploded. Rather than simply say exploded, SpaceX used the public relations euphemism ‘‘rapid unscheduled disassembly.” It was described in an article by Tariq Malik and Mike Wall at Space.com titled SpaceX’s 1st Starship launches on epic test flight, explodes in ‘rapid unscheduled disassembly’.

 

On April 22, 2019 I blogged about them previously using another euphemism for a Crew Dragon problem in a post titled Incident and anomaly just are weasel words for failure.

 

When I saw a video of the SpaceX Starship explosion, I immediately thought instead of a plain English description repeatedly used by John Candy and Joe Flaherty in a comedy routine on SCTV called the Farm Film Report. While dressed in overalls, they proclaimed the punchline that:

 

“He blowed up. He blowed up real good!”  

 

A three-minute SCTV video example has Catherine O’Hara playing Brooke Shields.

 

The Starship image was adapted from one at Wikimedia Commons.

 

 

What mistakes should you run away from?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tips on how to speak can either tell you what to do - or what not to do. At CNBC on May 20, 2021 there is an article by John Bowe titled Fear of public speaking? The biggest mistake to avoid – and 5 things to focus on, according to a speech expert. He says not to highlight your differences from the audience.

 

A second article by Fia Fasbinder at Inc. on January 19, 2017 is titled Troubleshooting TED: How to avoid 3 public speaking mistakes, which are Distracting Movement, Filler Words, and A Podium-Shaped Crutch.

 

A third article by Kathy Caprino at Forbes on November 16, 2011 is titled Why so many “experts” are terrible speakers: top 5 public speaking mistakes. They are failing to:

 

1]  meet the audience where they are

2]  make a heartfelt human connection

3]  show respect for the listener

4]  inspire follow-up thinking

5]  leave a lasting message of significance

 

A decade ago on April 1, 2011 I blogged about the first, in a post titled Where is your audience starting from?

 

A fourth article by Patricia Fripp on June 12, 2013 is titled Ten pitfalls to avoid in public speaking. Her list of things to avoid is:

 

1)    Unclear thinking

2)    No clear structure

3)    No memorable stories

4)    No emotional connection

5)    Wrong level of abstraction

6)    No pauses

7)    Irritating non-words

8)    Stepping on the punch-word

9)    Not having a strong opening and closing

10)  Misusing technology

 

The cartoon of a running man was adapted from one on page 61 of F. Fox’s Funny Folk, a 1917 book of cartoons you can find at the Internet Archive.

 

Incident and anomaly just are weasel words for failure

When something embarrassing happens, we may hear euphemisms from management and legal downplaying the situation. On Saturday, April 20th SpaceX had a ‘problem’ during a test. Yahoo reported Incident on SpaceX pad could delay its first manned flight, while Gizmodo reported SpaceX’s Crew Dragon suffers ‘anomaly’ during testing at Cape Canaveral. Forbes more clearly reported SpaceX’s Crew Dragon suffers ‘anomaly’ and may have exploded during a test.

Incident means something happened; anomaly means something unexpected happened; failure means something failed to function. This ‘incident’ ended with a large cloud of red smoke.

Would you believe an airline pilot who said your flight time will be 1 hour and 27 minutes?

Two days ago Darren Fleming posted an article titled Flight time 1 hr and 27 min on The Official Toastmasters International Group at LinkedIn. It previously had appeared on March 1, 2016 both at his blog and at LinkedIn Pulse.  

He said:

“     I love the precision of flying. The captain makes an announcement that we will be pushing back from the terminal in 4 minutes and the flight will take 1 hour and 27 minutes to reach our destination.
      It gives the feeling of certainty. We know the captain is in control and knows exactly what is happening. They don’t say “I think the flight will be about an hour and a half’, or ‘I believe we’ll be taking off to the South.’ The captain is 100% certain.
     This is not arrogance, overconfidence or anything else. It's ownership. The Captain knows they are in charge and directs accordingly.
      As a passenger, I like knowing that the person flying me through the air is in control. They are not second-guessing or believing we will get there. They know and communicate that and we accept it.
      Do you communicate your message with the same level of authority?”

My thoughts are that the pilot is both arrogant and overconfident - someone who doesn’t know the difference between what a flight time calculator program spits out and reality. Flight time includes three different phases -  climbing to cruising altitude, level flight, and descending to land.

1 hour and 27 minutes rather than 26 or 28 is a precision of about 1.1%. That’s a message communicated with an unjustified level of authority. It assumes that during level flight headwinds won’t change, and he (or she) won’t have to change course to avoid turbulence, or go around a storm. And it assumes he won't be diverted by other traffic during descent prior to landing. An article in the Telegraph titled Are you being told the truth about flight times? by Hugh Morris and Oliver Smith on February 28, 2018 pointed out that it is normal to give high estimates for flight time – the URL says Are-airlines-exaggerating-flight-times-so-theyre-never-late.  

I’d be more likely to believe him if he just said 1 hour and 30 minutes.

Jargon versus clarity: The only thing we have to fear is significant anomalies

In his inaugural speech Franklin Roosevelt famously said that: “Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself – nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance”. He did NOT say that the only thing we have to fear is significant anomalies.

An anomaly is something abnormal or irregular. “Significant anomalies” is internal NASA technical jargon for major discrepancies that might lead to problems. Would we want to hear about insignificant anomalies? We probably would not. Somewhere inside NASA though somebody is looking to try and catch them before they grow to become significant.

Technical jargon has escaped from inside industry and government and now is being inflicted on the outside world. They know what it means, but the rest of us are scratching our heads. Jargon usually is the enemy of clarity in speaking. Steve Adubato discussed this problem in an article titled Lose the jargon, clarity is the way to go

When people ask me what I do, I tell them that for the last twenty years I have been figuring out why things busted or rusted. In technical jargon I could say that I conducted root cause failure analysis (or RCFA). My part of the puzzle starts from looking at the materials and processes used to make a component, product, or system. When I talk with a client, I often say that: “It was made right. We better look at how it was used to see why it broke (or rusted).” I have learned to resist saying that “Chemical and metallurgical analysis of the component revealed no significant anomalies.”