Yes, I know they’re wronger than a wrong thing (hence my using them as a counterexample—and, of course, that you used them in your post), but you haven’t shown the difference in the shape of the reasoning applied: your proposed razor doesn’t work well on beliefs held on a level below rational consideration (rational consideration being something that many creationists can do quite well, if sufficiently compartmentalised away from their protected beliefs).
My point is to warn people who want to be rational of a failure mode that makes this razor not something to be relied upon precisely when they hold the belief in question strongly.
Yes, I know they’re wronger than a wrong thing (hence my using them as a counterexample—and, of course, that you used them in your post), but you haven’t shown the difference in the shape of the reasoning applied: your proposed razor doesn’t work well on beliefs held on a level below rational consideration (rational consideration being something that many creationists can do quite well, if sufficiently compartmentalised away from their protected beliefs).
I’m not sure I get your point here, sorry!
I’m trying to think of ways that rational people can use to evaluate claims, not ways that can be used rhetorically to convince people in general...
My point is to warn people who want to be rational of a failure mode that makes this razor not something to be relied upon precisely when they hold the belief in question strongly.
Ok, I see the point, and agree it’s an issue.