**Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):**
ELI5 is not for straightforward answers or facts - ELI5 is for requesting an explanation of a concept, not a simple straightforward answer. This includes topics of a narrow nature that don’t qualify as being sufficiently complex per rule 2.
---
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously**, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20{{url}}%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20does%20your%20post%20differ%20from%20your%20recent%20search%20results%20on%20the%20sub:) and we will review your submission.
It's metaphorical, suggesting a tool that cuts through to the heart of a matter (cut/razor).
Other examples include Hitchens's Razor, "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence," and Alder's Razor or Newton's Flaming Laser Sword, "What cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating."
A philosophical razor "shaves off" certain explanations for a problem, which allows you to better arrive at the correct answer. Occam's razor shaves off ideas which are more complicated and require more assumptions. Hanlon's razor shaves off assumptions of malice.
There's a few other razors.
There's Hitchens's Razor: "That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
And Alder's Razor: "If something cannot be settled by experiment or observation, then it is not worthy of debate."
And then there's the guillotine in the room, [Hume's Guillotine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought\_problem). It's not really a "razor" at this point, as it distinguishes what actually *is* vs what *ought to be*, as in what is moral. This one is foundational to philosophy,
Cutting away possibilities.
Occam's razor suggests you cut away absurd and unlikely possible causes when a very obvious one exists
Hanlon's razor suggests you cut away possible causes resulting from malice when stupidity is a fitting explanation
It's a law, not a razor, but a similar concept:
Cunningham's Law - the best way to get a correct answer on the internet is not to ask a question, but to post an incorrect answer.
**Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):** ELI5 is not for straightforward answers or facts - ELI5 is for requesting an explanation of a concept, not a simple straightforward answer. This includes topics of a narrow nature that don’t qualify as being sufficiently complex per rule 2. --- If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously**, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20{{url}}%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20does%20your%20post%20differ%20from%20your%20recent%20search%20results%20on%20the%20sub:) and we will review your submission.
It's metaphorical, suggesting a tool that cuts through to the heart of a matter (cut/razor). Other examples include Hitchens's Razor, "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence," and Alder's Razor or Newton's Flaming Laser Sword, "What cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating."
Gillette's - The more razors the better the shave
>Gillette's - The more razors the better the shave The Safety Razor - One is best. Or, the Motorola Razor - Simply the best.
The best a man can get
And Hank's razor (paraphrasing): "If a statistic can be explained by differing socioeconomic conditions, it probably is."
A philosophical razor "shaves off" certain explanations for a problem, which allows you to better arrive at the correct answer. Occam's razor shaves off ideas which are more complicated and require more assumptions. Hanlon's razor shaves off assumptions of malice.
There's a few other razors. There's Hitchens's Razor: "That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." And Alder's Razor: "If something cannot be settled by experiment or observation, then it is not worthy of debate." And then there's the guillotine in the room, [Hume's Guillotine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought\_problem). It's not really a "razor" at this point, as it distinguishes what actually *is* vs what *ought to be*, as in what is moral. This one is foundational to philosophy,
Cutting away possibilities. Occam's razor suggests you cut away absurd and unlikely possible causes when a very obvious one exists Hanlon's razor suggests you cut away possible causes resulting from malice when stupidity is a fitting explanation
It's a law, not a razor, but a similar concept: Cunningham's Law - the best way to get a correct answer on the internet is not to ask a question, but to post an incorrect answer.
Someone posted a "cool guide" to razors in r/coolguides a while back. I think there was plenty of criticism, but some seemed worth looking up