Ordre Spontané

Brandolini’s law

Over the last few weeks, this picture has been circulating on the Internet. According to RationalWiki, that sentence must be attributed to Alberto Brandolini, an Italian independent software development consultant [1]. I’ve checked with Alberto and, unless someone else claims paternity of this absolutely brilliant statement, it seems that he actually is the original author. Here is what seems to be the very first appearance of what must, from now on, be known as the Brandolini’s law (or, as Alberto suggests, the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle):

To be sure, a number of people have made similar statements. Ironically, it seems that the “a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes” quote isn’t from Mark Twain but a slightly modified version of Charles Spurgeon’s “a lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on” (1859) which, in turn, might be inspired by Jonathan Swift’s “falsehood flies, and the truth comes limping after it” (1710). Always according to RationalWiki, the concept may also refer to the teoria della montagna di merda (“the Bullshit Mountain Theory”) as postulated by Uriel Fanelli, another Italian.

Anyway, there are a number of reasons to credit Brandolini and, apart from the overwhelmingly elegant formulation, the fact it’s not that much about the speed of dissemination of bullshit but rather about the inherent difficulty to refute bullshit. There are plenty of examples ranging from the “Friedman was Pinochet’s mentor” story to the infamous “loi de 1973” in France [2].

So, from now on, I’ll refer to the Brandolini’s law (a.k.a. the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle) which states that:
The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.

---
[1] It’s actually Alberto on the picture. It was taken at XP2014 on May 30th, 2014.
[2] A conspiracy theory developed by far-right/left politicians in France over the last years.

7 commentaires :

  1. Cela s'applique-t-il, pensez-vous, à l'alarmisme climatique. A la lumière de larticle sur la loi de 1973, (techniquement j'ai deux yeux deux oreilles et pas de cravate), je me demande qui des uns ou des autres complote. Amicalement

    RépondreSupprimer
  2. It's something I've been discussing for years. It's also a very poor estimate. Simply casting an existing idea in pseudo-science ("order of magnitude" is just using buzz words) isn't sufficient to dub something as a law, let alone name it after the person who does it. Sorry, but posting an image on the Internet doesn't qualify either.

    RépondreSupprimer
    Réponses
    1. I would like to sympathise, if you feel you have been undercut from due credit for a brilliant idea. But really, "Murphy's Law" and "Godwin's Law" didn't enter popular culture via peer review. This deserves its place

      Supprimer
    2. Robert Marchenoir18/07/2014 16:01

      Roger, you're missing the point.

      It's obvious this does not pretend to be a scientific law, but an astute observation on human failings. As such, it's very true. And useful.

      Supprimer
    3. Take it from one who knows: Life is easier to understand when one does not strive to be literal every minute of every day. Such an approach also helps one's ability to sense humor when he encounters it.

      Supprimer
  3. The language of this aphorism--and Roger Gay's comment--certainly reflect the scientism of our times. But aphorisms are not to be taken literally. Indeed, I've never seen a truth wearing shoes. Or boots.

    RépondreSupprimer
  4. In other words, he's basically redundantly aphorism-ifying "Gish Gallop" from the other direction.

    RépondreSupprimer