Talk:Sod's law

Related laws

Sod's Law: It will go wrong at the worst possible 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)

Sod

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

Move and merge with Murphy's Law (2006)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[1] no merge

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)

Agree that they should be merged, as should Finagle's Law. They all mean the same thing. This article on Sod's Law claims that it has a slightly different meaning, but the claim is unsourced and could be incorporated in the merged article either way. cagliost (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This section was deleted as UNCONFIRMED

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)

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)

This is a better definition of Sod's Law. My preferred example is that if you take an umbrella, it won't rain, but if you don't take the umbrella, it will rain. If you put down newspaper before you touch up some paintwork, you won't drip; if you don't put down the newspaper you'll get paint on your carpet. The way this article is currently written seems to be trying to make Sod's Law more like Murphy's Law, which it isn't. Allen Brown (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Precise Definition

Both Murphy's Law and Sod's Law are used in overlapping and imprecise circumstances, probably neither ever has had, or ever will have, a precise definition. However, I tend to look at Murphy's law as an engineer might: If you leave the possibility of something going wrong, then at some time it will. On the other hand Sod's law is more a pessimists view: When something does go wrong, it will go wrong in the worst possible way at the worst possible time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.166.56.28 (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That was also my understanding of the difference. Murphy's Law says that anything that can go wrong will, Sod's Law says that the probability of a thing or event going wrong is proportional to the inconvenience it will cause. I have also seen Sod's Law referred to as "The Law of the Universal Cussedness of Nature." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.213.154 (talk) 11:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

That was also my understanding. Murphy's Law anything can go wrong will, but with Sod's Law it doesn't just need to go wrong it needs to go wrong in such a fashion either due to irony or inconvenience that the observer will would probably say 'well that's Sod's law isn't it!' Chrisjwatts (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Obvious Psychological Artifact - Dawkins Believes in PK & Magic

Is this a serious article? Dawkin's quote shows he believes in mind over matter, more specifically psychokinesis, and possibly magic. Article is unabashedly unscientific, unless Dawkins is thinking of the work of J. B. Rhine et al. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1016:B11E:C0A3:151B:8DD3:B93E:A3BB (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you familiar with Dawkins? I don't think you can be, otherwise you would know that he is one of the most outspoken critics of religious and mystic ideas where they contradict science and that it is very unlikely he is being unscientific. The quote is, in fact, Dawkins' description of Sod's law, presented by Dawkins in this way to highlight that it must be false, not meant in any way to promote it. SpinningSpark 20:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I've tweaked the cite to provide a link to an online readable copy of the relevant page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course I am. That's why I was surprised to see that he has been so persuaded by parapsychological evidence as to believe that intention can influence the outcome of random physical events. If Dawkins' quotation is intended to skewer this "law," why is it presented as evidence of its existence? Do you know when you've been trolled as a thoroughgoing hypocrite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.199.6.4 (talk • contribs)

Ambitious Reference?

The paragraph begining with "According to David J. Hand, emeritus professor of mathematics" continues for a while before citation. Are we sure that the following is direct quotation. Personally I believe only the first sentence should be a citation and that "While Murphy's law says that anything that can go wrong, will go wrong (eventually), Sod's law requires that it always goes wrong with the worst possible outcome." should change to "While Murphy's law says that anything that can go wrong, will go wrong (eventually), Sod's law requires that it always eventually goes wrong, and with the worst possible outcome." — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnJoLu (talk • contribs) 00:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

None of it is a direct quote. It would be in quotes if it were. SpinningSpark 12:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)