There is the story/urban legend/whatever of an author going to a lecture on (possessive pronoun)'s works and the lecturer interprets the works. At the end the author goes to the lecturer and explains what (he/she/they/ze) meant and is told 'You are merely the author - you do not understand what you actually meant.' Is this an example of Grice's razor.
And can the razor be used to confuse and confound the proverbial hostile sentient computer (eg some variant of the first lines of ). Anna Livia (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
On your edits to the "Logical Razor" article.
@Bertrc Hi Bertrc. I've noticed that you've made several edits to the "Logical Razor" article. You've made edits to the following sections (this list is ordered chronologically): (1) Alder's Razor, (2) Popper's Falsifiability Principle, (3) Grice's Razor, and (4) Occam's Razor . At the moment I only have problems with edits 1-3 but not edit 4.
Your first edit (1) reads: "For some reasons, true adherents of this proposition never bother to argue in its defense . . ." (sic).
Before I critique your first edit, I would be grateful if you could add-to or clarify your comments. LeucippusTalk 18:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hey Leucippus, Sorry for the delay. I only hop on RW during the odd moon. What were your concerns with those edits? You should have felt free to just dive in and start critiquing. I usually deserve it. --Bertrc (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- Edit 1 - Alder's razor says that if something cannot be settled via experimentation, then it is not worth debating. That claim, itself, cannot be settled by experimentation. Thus, people who truly follow it do not debate whether people should follow it. It is a self-refuting idea. I left the ellipsis so that people could get the punch-line on their own . . . --Bertrc (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- Edit 2 - Popper was wisely specific that his concern was science (which we had not mentioned) Thus, he does not fall into the trap that Alder placed for himself. Popper's principle is not scientific and, therefore, does not apply to itself. Since his principle is not scientific, you do not have to deal with the type of self-refutation that "There are no absolutes" has to deal with. --Bertrc (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- Edit 3 - I felt the original sentence was over using the word "meant". I rephrased in a way I believed underscored "Do what I mean, not what I say." --Bertrc (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Rephrasing the Hitchens joke. Hitchens was presenting a self refuting idea. Specifically: Without providing evidence, he was presenting an assertion about ignoring assertions that are presented without evidence. Sure, other people can come up with examples of where assertions made without evidence are incorrect, but, in the book, Hitchens just says it and then goes on a rant. Am I missing something? An alternative phrasing could be: "Hitchens, at the time, unfortunately, did not provide any evidence for why such assertions can be dismissed.)? --Bertrc (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)