Talk:Sod's law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sod's Law: It will go wrong at the worst posible time.

Plus, we need to prove Sod's law is older than (Murphy's.)

It isn't Murphy's law that it should be compared to.

Murphy's law has nothing to do with it, it's Finagle's Law.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

All three are connected, and Murphy's Law is often misquoted as Finagle's Law. This page should explain what is different between Sod's Law and the other two. I have to research it myself first or I would explain. Crito2161 00:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

As an American, I've never heard of anyone using "sod" to mean sodomite... Pimlottc 18:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Move and merge with Murphy's Law

Much as I'd hate to see a usually British phrase be merged into an American phrase article, seeing as both deal with pretty much the exact same phrase, wouldn't it make sense to merge it with the other article? The only variation in Sod's Law is that misfortune is tailored to the person --Jayau1234 00:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This section was deleted as UNCONFIRMED

[edit] Siddons' Law

disarming this
{{original research}}

A corollary of Sod's Law is Siddons' Law which states that in any bookshop on a particular day, the number of people buying books is inversely proportional to the number of people selling books. This is born out in practice and bookdealers will verify that on the coldest, wettest miserable day which has kept customers at bay, it will not have affected the hordes of people anxious to offload their spare books.

There were no hits I could find on the web for Siddons' Law. Whilst ironic, without an external reference to said law, it should not be on wikipedia, as anyone can write humourous lines. Sorry. Best regards // FrankB 17:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  • FYI, I've asked a librarian to look into this in printed material archives, and such. // FrankB 17:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not currently in reach of anything in print (on my sickbed), but after various twisty searches on Google and other engines, and seeing that the editor who added that paragraph (User:84.71.17.67) has a total of 2 edits, neither one of any substance, I think it's OK to delete it as unsubstantiated. If I find anything later I'll let you know. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion over law names

I was under the impression that Sod's Law was the one that stated that the chance of something going wrong is directly proportional to the importance that it not go wrong - eg, the chance of the toast landing butter side down is proportional to the cost of the carpet, the chance of a traffic jam occuring is proportional to how vital it is that you get to your destination on time, etc. If this is wrong, could someone enlighten me as to which law that actually is? Otherwise, I will add a section to the end detailing this alternate law. Heliomance 12:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Murphy Reference

""Sod’s Law" is similar to, but broader than, Murphy's law ("Whatever can go wrong, will go wrong")." ~ This sentence seems to imply that the quote in brackets is Murphy's law. While the original quote is uncertain, the one thing that is universally agreed upon is that that wasn't it. The briefest glance at Wikipedia's own section on Murphy's Law will show that the quote in brackets does not even mean the same thing as Murphy's Law. Branfish 19:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Murphy's Law is usually quoted as "If something can go wrong, it will." This is similar or identical in meaning to "Whatever can go wrong will go wrong." Heliomance 15:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if it's generally quoted as such, that's not what it is, and does not even imply the same thing as the actual quote. The actual quote ("If there's more than one way to do a job, and one of those ways will result in disaster, then somebody will do it that way.") is all about defensive design, whereas the generally stated quote is just pessimism. Branfish 08:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on Murphy Reference

I haven't researched enough yet to know exactly what Murphy's Law posits, but in any case it would seem that Sod's Law is a specific case...a subset, if you will, of the phenomenon that Murphy's Law refers to; and therefore not "broader" than Murphy's Law as so far described. So, the original description of Sod's Law itself is self-contradicting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenrs (talk • contribs) 05:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Innumeracy

"Sod's law is also an example of innumeracy, where people ignorant of the laws of probability assume relations between things that in fact happen by chance." ~ This does not seem relevent. Sod's Law does not imply ignorance of causality. Indeed, if anything, Sod's Law is guilty of assuming causality where there is none - the weather is in no way affected by your decision as to whether or not to take an umbrella out, but Sod's Law assumes it does. I really do not see what point the sentence I quoted is trying to make. Branfish

What exactly are you trying to say? What you have said Sod's Law assumes is exactly the same as what the line you have quoted said. They are assuming relations, or causality, where there is none. Heliomance 15:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I think I misread the sentence. Sorry about that. Branfish 08:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)