5 ms·

And accusations of sabotage without proof of any sort is baseless conjecture.

bitL 9y ago
Heinlein's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice." More on common razor heuristics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razor_%28philosophy%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razor_%28philosophy%29 https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_razor https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_razor
- zaroth 9y ago
  A better way to state it, IMO; Stupidity should be assumed. Malice demands evidence. But it comes down to intent. Impute intent only when indicated. Which when you think about it is only fair. It’s self-evident Visa fucked up, but a claim it was malicious must be substantiated or it’s just trolling.
  - bitL 9y ago
    I am not saying somebody at VISA did it intentionally, I just don't understand why am I supposed to assume they didn't given whatever popular logical razor that can't be a tautology on its own.
    - zaroth 9y ago
      Because supposing malicious intent without any evidence to support the conclusion is uncharitable at best, and libelous at worst. It’s a philosophy which many people find beneficial, to try to shape your thinking in a way that you set a higher bar before believing something negative was done intentionally rather than unintentionally. The inverse (converse?) is also be true — when lacking conclusive evidence either way, assuming positive things are done intentionally and not unintentionally. Another way to think about it is; what’s the cost of being wrong? It’s as simple as giving the benefit of the doubt.
      - bitL 9y ago
        > uncharitable at best I am fine with that. I am not going to assume "good intentions" by default, but case by case as I see fit. Even if my biases get in the way (like with any untrained human). If there is a non-zero probability of somebody intentionally causing something, i.e. it cannot be counter-factually refuted, then it has to be handled as one possible explanation, however unlikely it is. Haven't you ever seen how people cook the books for businesses to appear flawless? Ohh, that small mistake? Just an error, don't look too much into that! Let's have a drink and here is your ticket to a strip club to entertain you! Have fun!
        ZephyrP 9y ago
        > i.e it cannot be counter-factually refuted, then it has to be handled as one possible explanation, however unlikely it is. ergo, we must accuse all others of whichever crimes are not literally logical impossibilities.
        bitL 9y ago
        Nope, just keep it in your list of probable reasons. Like when you do particle filters, you have your most probable states but nevertheless keep probabilities that you are wrong and you are in fact in any of the other possible states.
  - tinokid 9y ago
    Really? It's "self-evident" Visa fucked up? Yeah...I'll be waiting for the statement to that effect on visa.com And then I saw this comment: "Thats weird. I have a mastercard and was charged twice. So how is it Visas fault."
  - bitL 9y ago
    “The aim of science is to seek the simplest explanation of complex facts. We are apt to fall into the error of thinking that the facts are simple because simplicity is the goal of our quest. The guiding motto in the life of every natural philosopher should be “Seek simplicity and distrust it.” – Alfred North Whitehead
sevenfive 9y ago
This is why I hate Hanlon's razor. It's a totally generic catchphrase that people on HN just keep repeating. It's not an argument.

bitL 9y ago

Heinlein's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice." More on common razor heuristics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razor_%28philosophy%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razor_%28philosophy%29 https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_razor https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_razor

zaroth 9y ago
A better way to state it, IMO; Stupidity should be assumed. Malice demands evidence. But it comes down to intent. Impute intent only when indicated. Which when you think about it is only fair. It’s self-evident Visa fucked up, but a claim it was malicious must be substantiated or it’s just trolling.
- bitL 9y ago
  I am not saying somebody at VISA did it intentionally, I just don't understand why am I supposed to assume they didn't given whatever popular logical razor that can't be a tautology on its own.
  - zaroth 9y ago
    Because supposing malicious intent without any evidence to support the conclusion is uncharitable at best, and libelous at worst. It’s a philosophy which many people find beneficial, to try to shape your thinking in a way that you set a higher bar before believing something negative was done intentionally rather than unintentionally. The inverse (converse?) is also be true — when lacking conclusive evidence either way, assuming positive things are done intentionally and not unintentionally. Another way to think about it is; what’s the cost of being wrong? It’s as simple as giving the benefit of the doubt.
    - bitL 9y ago
      > uncharitable at best I am fine with that. I am not going to assume "good intentions" by default, but case by case as I see fit. Even if my biases get in the way (like with any untrained human). If there is a non-zero probability of somebody intentionally causing something, i.e. it cannot be counter-factually refuted, then it has to be handled as one possible explanation, however unlikely it is. Haven't you ever seen how people cook the books for businesses to appear flawless? Ohh, that small mistake? Just an error, don't look too much into that! Let's have a drink and here is your ticket to a strip club to entertain you! Have fun!
      - ZephyrP 9y ago
        > i.e it cannot be counter-factually refuted, then it has to be handled as one possible explanation, however unlikely it is. ergo, we must accuse all others of whichever crimes are not literally logical impossibilities.
        bitL 9y ago
        Nope, just keep it in your list of probable reasons. Like when you do particle filters, you have your most probable states but nevertheless keep probabilities that you are wrong and you are in fact in any of the other possible states.
- tinokid 9y ago
  Really? It's "self-evident" Visa fucked up? Yeah...I'll be waiting for the statement to that effect on visa.com And then I saw this comment: "Thats weird. I have a mastercard and was charged twice. So how is it Visas fault."
- bitL 9y ago
  “The aim of science is to seek the simplest explanation of complex facts. We are apt to fall into the error of thinking that the facts are simple because simplicity is the goal of our quest. The guiding motto in the life of every natural philosopher should be “Seek simplicity and distrust it.” – Alfred North Whitehead

sevenfive 9y ago

This is why I hate Hanlon's razor. It's a totally generic catchphrase that people on HN just keep repeating. It's not an argument.