2025 RationalWiki 'Oregon Plan' Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!
Donations so far: $8765.50Goal: $10000

Talk:Murphy's Law

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Other laws[edit]

These should be in a separate article. -- Nx / talk 17:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur. But what shall we call the article? Laws and Adages? DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 11:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Next thing you know, corollaries will be striking for equal mention. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 12:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I demand equal treatment for corollaries! Scarlet A.pngbomination 14:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Incoming[edit]

Well its a link to this article but not for this law check it out. 216.221.87.85 (talk) 03:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how true that Beckhap's Law is. I once knew a girl (still do actually, but we only talk rarely now) that was both good extremely good looking and intelligent, pity she was a little emotionally unsettled. - π 05:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this technically magical thinking?[edit]

I mean, Murphy's law was crafted for engineers, to help guide them on the idea of coming up with edge case events that can mess up your beautiful invention. Like "Someone will drive a 2 ton truck over your backcountry bridge" or "A hurricane will hit this dam in an area that hasn't seen a hurricane in 100 years, the year after you build it." But conventional perception actually treats Murphy's law as a description of the world. And confirmation bias helps affirm the notion to people. Does that need to be addressed in the article? Ikanreed (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it might, but It applies outside it's original context however. Something can and likely will go wrong, it's just how the world actually is, i don't think it's magical to say so.--Miekal 19:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
So when's the last time a tsunami hit New York City? Ikanreed (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
It could though, Better to be prepared. If there's a reasonable chance it actually could happen, i dont think its magical.--Miekal 21:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Donald Rumsfeld[edit]

Is Mruphy's Law in part an expression of the unknown unknowns coming into play? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I can't understand this one[edit]

Really, it is not clear to me. A lot of bad things happen, but i haven't been strucked by a lighting or being killed by a tornado, and good things happened too. I know that something will fail if given enough time, but the law is kind of fatalistic: Things will go wrong, even if you prepare for the worst (it's a corollary). — Unsigned, by: 190.122.56.144 / talk / contribs

Butter-side down[edit]

Isn't there actually a mathematical explanation for this? Buttered toast phenomenon... we could add that tidbit in the article to make ourselves look even stupider. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 00:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm just going off the top of my head here, but wouldn't the buttered side of a slice of bread be slightly heavier, and thus have greater odds of being the side that ends up touching the ground after falling? It's the same principle as loaded dice. --Luigifan18 (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)