I think most of us that engage in philosophical debates and discussions will be guaranteed to encounter platitudes and sayings. We likely incorporate many of these into our own tool set of things we use when having such discussions. These tools can indeed be useful. I have noticed they can become a trap as well.

They often end up being used as an escape clause/hatch that seems to be more focused on ending the conversation. Things simply stop and momentum towards potential insight and discovery can be stopped.

I at the moment think this is due to us using them out of reflex and not thinking that deeply about meaning at the time we use them. I have written about this in one fashion or another in the past. I wanted to put it out there again and focus on a few of them because it was again in my mind and I have this nagging suspicion that it might be important.

Correlation does not equal causation...

This is an accurate statement and is often used as almost a PERIOD to a conversation to shut it down. I would like to offer a revised version of it that still leaves the conversation open.

Correlation does not equal causation, but can lead to discovery of causation.

The various razors often get trotted out as well...

Occam's Razor...

This can come in different formats...

"Entities should not be multiplied without necessity" is one form and is not the form I usually see this razor appear in.

It essentially is the concept that the "simplest explanation tends to be correct." It is basically a warning not to overcomplicate an investigation or thought without need.

The problem is that it again is often treated as a period. It presumes that the simplest explanation is usually correct. The qualifier here is that assuming this is true it is not ALWAYS the case. It should thus not be the end of conversation because it is uttered. If it is uttered it should be just a warning to be wary about being distracted from a solution that might be right in front of you.

Sagan Standard...

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." If a claim is extraordinary (meaning outside of the norm) then it requires evidence that is also outside of the norm. This should not be assumed to be the case. The evidence could be quite ordinary and just not considered in a way that makes the claim suddenly no longer extraordinary. See Occam's Razor.

Hitchen's Razor...

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." I find this one interesting as to me "Innocent until proven guilty" fits within the scope of this razor. A claim of guilt can be asserted. If there is no evidence supporting the claim it can be dismissed without evidence being required to permit the dismissal.

Hume's Razor...

"Causes must be sufficiently able to produce the effect assigned to them." This one I don't think I've ever personally encountered anyone using. Yet it would seem that if a cause is to be the cause it is required to explain everything that is observed for which it is being cast as the cause.

Duck test...

"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is probably a duck." This is a fun one that I do encounter from time to time. It also should never be used as the PERIOD ending a conversation. Doing so ignores the word probably. It is probably a duck. That doesn't mean it is. There is still room to consider it may not be. The question the people conversing must decide is if they have reason or interest to pursue it any further.

It is an opportunity to decide "Should we exit this conversation or should we proceed?"

Popper's falsifiability principle:

"For a theory to be considered scientific, it must be possible to disprove or refute it." This one is actually important in this day and age though if you said it most people have probably never encountered it.

For something to be scientific there needs to be something that if it occurred would result in the theory being wrong or incorrect. Another way to look at this is that if you are not allowed to challenge something and question and seek whether it can be disproven or not then in truth that can no longer be considered scientific... consider the labels "denier", "consensus", etc.

Newton's flaming laser sword:

"If something cannot be settled by experiment, it is not worth debating." I disagree with them. The worth doing of an action should be purely between the people having the discussion, conversation, or debate. Yet it should be considered hypothetical and only as potentially a thought experiment or musing if it cannot be settled with experimentation. Also there are things that are worth debating and discussion that we simply do not have an idea on how to develop an experiment that would let us know. Without exploring the hypothetical the things we do know likely would not ever have occurred.

Grice's razor:

"Address what the speaker actually meant, instead of addressing the literal meaning of what they actually said." I think this is actually dangerous. You have to assume you know what the person meant. I am hit frequently with people assuming I was stating things that I did not. They choose to focus on what they think I mean instead of paying attention to what I actually said.

I very much disagree with this razor. I think it relies too much on implication and assuming people think the same as yourself.

Hanlon's razor:

"Never attribute to malice that which can adequately explained by incompetence or stupidity." I encounter this razor fairly frequently and while I see what it is aiming for it is flawed. It uses the word NEVER which is an absolute at the outset. Something can still be due to malice. It can also be malice and stupidity. To be open I am like a dog with a bone when I encounter absolutes. I know that it only takes a single exception for an absolute to be false.

I can however apply "Grice's Razor" above to this razor and know what it likely was intended to mean.

If stupidity or incompetence can explain something then it doesn't really matter whether malice was or was not a factor.

I also have realized lately that things may seem stupid if we assume a specific goal yet if the goal is something other than that we assume it might actually be quite brilliant.

Example: The things being done in the world to the global economy are only stupid if you think the goal is to keep a strong economy. We would call people doing these things stupid. However, what if the goal instead is to crash economies so they can rush in with a solution they would like to offer to put in place instead. If that is the goal then it would not be stupid but would actually be brilliant.

---

Most of the list above I took from here and then added my own words and thoughts. If you want to know more about most of the things above they go into a lot more detail on each on that webpage.

---

The main reason I wrote this is because when we simply throw phrases out there without thought they become platitudes. Ultimately I don't see much value in platitudes. In some cases they are nothing more than virtue signaling to make someone feel wise/smart because they stated a philosophically deep statement. Often they may not have thought much about it.

They can often be used to shut down conversations when there may be reason to pursue them further.

Other platitudes:

"Every dog has its day"

"A broken clock is right twice a day"

You get the gist...