Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!(Isaiah 5:20) NKJV
Hitchens’s razor is based on assuming that secondary sources of evidence, vetted and approved by Peer Review to be compliant with the popular science paradigm (SciPop), are primary sources of evidence.
Using as an example the stratigraphic column, SciPop can claim that biological evolution from common ancestors is a “scientific fact,” and claim that the geological timescale is evidence. The problem is that the geological timescale is a secondary interpretation of the stratigraphic column, a primary source, which is evidence for Noah’s flood.
The fact that the secondary sources are derived from SciPop is why they don’t support a competing paradigm. However, on examination, the primary sources of evidence are found to be compliant with the competing paradigm. Here’s a way to look at it:
- Hitchens is in a football field playing football with a football.
- Matty is in a tennis court playing tennis with a tennis ball.
- Hitchens is mocking Matty because you can’t play tennis with a football.
- Matty doesn’t care, Matty doesn’t need a football to play tennis.
Hitchens’s Razor – Navigation
|1||Hitchens’s Razor||Proverbs 16:18|
|2||Epistemological Abuse||Ezekiel 45:10|
|3||Primary or Secondary?||Isaiah 5:20|
|4||The High Price of Epistemological Buffoonery||Luke 16:23|
|5||The Fool has Said in his Heart||Psalms 53:1|
July 24th – Hitchens’s Razor
Hitchens’s razor is epistemological sleight-of-hand which fails to distinguish justified belief from opinion.