An American citizen born and raised in California is unsettled after receiving an e-mail from the US Department of Homeland Security ordering him to leave the country “immediately.”
Aldo Martinez-Gomez received the DHS notice on April 11, threatening “criminal prosecution” and fines if he does not depart within seven days.
…
Martinez-Gomez works full-time assisting immigrants in court for a non-profit and believes his advocacy work may have placed him on the government’s radar.
Hanlon’s Razor is basically a special case of Occam’s Razor.
Making a mistake or doing something stupid is easy. Conspiring to do something malicious is not as easy. The simpler explanation is generally that something is a mistake rather than an elaborate conspiracy. So, Occam’s Razor says that the simplest explanation (a mistake) is probably the right one.
Fwiw Occam’s razor is actually a little more precise than “choose the simplest explanation”. Specifically, it defines what “simplest” actually means, in such a way that makes it easier to see how you could describe Hanlon’s razor as a special case of Occam’s.
Occam’s razor is that you should choose the solution which requires the fewest assumptions. Assuming someone made a mistake is precisely one assumption. That they were acting maliciously requires several, including having the motive to do it and, in a case involving large organisations, having the capability to cover it up.
From a logical perspective, if you’re trying to discover the truth of something you’re inevitably going to start weighing and eliminating variables. It makes sense to start from the absolute bottom, prove or disprove that, then move on.
It’s just razors all the way down…
Is it? Hitchens’ razor says that you’ve provided no evidence for your turtle-like stack of razors, so your claim can be dismissed without evidence.