A ‘RAZOR’ is an argument for “shaving off” unlikely or implausible explanations or arguments. Who would, in this context, not think of alternative therapies and the explanations provided for them? And who could deny that homeopathy, in particular, is crying out for its very own razor?
I am, of course, inspired by 4 existing razors:
Occam’s Razor: Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions is likely to be the correct one.
Hitchens’s Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Hanlon’s Razor: Never attribute to malice what can adequately explained by stupidity.
Alder’s Razor: What cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating.
To those of my readers who fail to see the relationship to homeopathy, I offer the following explanations:
OCCAM
Homeopaths claim that the explanation for homeopathy’s mode of action is the ‘memory of water’ theory which is now supported, they say, by all sorts of basic science from water structure to nano-particles. Even if true [which it is not], this explanation relies on a whole series of further assumptions, for instance, about how nano-particles bring about any clinical outcome. The competing hypothesis is that the benefit experienced by patients after homeopathy is due to non-specific or context effects such as the placebo effect, the empathetic consultation etc. We have therefore one single hypothesis (i. e. homeopathy works via non-specific effects which is even supported by experimental data) against a myriad of postulates which are largely speculative. Occam’s Razor holds that the explanation with the least assumptions is likely to be correct.
HITCHENS
Homeopaths claim that their remedies are more than a placebo. To support their claim, they have no good evidence but rely on cherry-picking and misrepresenting the available data. Hitchen’s Razor suggests that, as long as they don’t come up with evidence, we can dismiss these claims without even attempting to prove the cherry-pickers wrong.
HANLON
Homeopaths have given us plenty of evidence (for instance, on this blog) for the fact that they often have a somewhat disturbed relationship with the truth. One might think that this is because they are maliciously trying to mislead us. According to Halon’s Razor, it is more likely that they are just stupid.
ALDER
Homeopaths regularly claim that, as long as there is no proof that homeopathy does not work, there must be an open debate about the issues involved and, as long as there are genuine debates and doubts, we must continue to make homeopathy available to all. Alder’ s Razor, however, suggests otherwise: there have been many tests of homeopathy; their results have failed to settle the matter in favour of homeopathy; therefore we can forget about the whole thing, stop debating it, and close the issue.
So, what about the razor promised in the title of this post? Here it comes; it is an attempt to synthesize the 4 razors above and apply them to homeopathy. I will call it (somewhat pompously) ‘Ernst’s Razor’ and I have tried to formulate it such that it can be applied to most other bogus treatments simply by exchanging one single word:
INSTEAD OF RELYING ON EVIDENCE, HOMEOPATHY’S SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON MULTIPLE ASSUMPTIONS, LIES, IGNORANCE AND STUPIDITY.
Ernst’s Razor suits me when I see all the other uses for those $$$ people throw at homeopaths. Like getting some Vitamin C into Middle Eastern refugee camps!!! Thank you!
“Hanlon”, not “Halon”.
Should always be stated with:
* Its addendum: , (but never entirely discount malice).
* The Clark’s Law corrolary: Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
* Goldfinger’s Razor: Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.
sorry – mistake corrected, thanks
This is maybe a typo– “(which is even supported by experimental data)”: should that be “is *not*even supported” ??
(Also, it should be “Hitchens”, and Hitchens’ Razor, with the apostrophe after the s.)
1) NO TYPO
2) THANKS corrected the typo
[insufferable_pedant]
No, not “Hitchens’ ” – the possessive apostrophe after the “s” is only for plurals or names where the extra “s” is not normally pronounced. The correct possessive of “Hitchens” is “Hitchens’s”.
See http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/apostrophe#apostrophes_showing_possession
[/insufferable_pedant]
🙂
better a pedant than an Ullman
THANKS
Thank you, I’ve never really seen a good treatment of this issue. But according to the reference, if I would ‘normally’ say “Hitchens Razor” as opposed to “Hitchenses Razor” then I should spell it “Hitchens’ Razor” as opposed to “Hitchens’s Razor”. So it seems to just pass the buck, without providing actual guidelines for making a speaker’s decision. From the examples, I suppose that a speaker should use the extra s to avoid confusion about Hitchens’s actual surname – an issue that doesn’t exist with Charles but does with Bridges. And a writer should follow the same rule, in case the words are read aloud.
Oops, it says ‘naturally’ not ‘normally’. And the example given for Bridges actually invalidates my hypothesis, unless nobody is named Bridge (or Connor), and listeners are assumed to know that (we should ask actress Sally Field about that one). So, I’m not pleased with that reference, in the end it just says “write it the way you naturally would say it”, and of course things tend to be said according to how they are written… I’m not sure whether it’s a circular argument, or an example of the naturalistic fallacy.
Swedish Nobel Laureates
“Homeopathic products can not be called drugs”
http://www.dn.se/debatt/homeopatiska-produkter-kan-inte-kallas-lakemedel/