Talk:Philosophical razor

Philosophy: Logic Stub‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Stub

This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

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)[reply]

I vote: do not delete article.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I vote to keep, even if just as an interesting, humorous stub. Maybe add a disclaimer: "this is not 100% philosophy."----jorgeccoxrambo

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]