[jhiska]

The keyword in the rule of thumb known as Occam's razor is neither that the explanations be simple or complex, but that they be adequate to a knowledgeable person, and that given two (or more) highly adequate explanations -- one simple and one (or more) complex -- that the complex ones be cut in favor of the simplest one.

I guess the answer is no.

[EgoIncarnate]

The original statement was "Never attribute to stupidity alone that which is adequately explained by both stupidity and malice."

It seems to me that both are adequate explanations. One explanation requires one factor (stupidity), and the other two factors (stupidity and malice). The one factor explanation would seem to be the simpler of the two explanations.

It seems to me the original statement reverses the logic of Occam's razor by preferring the more complex example. I think my point still stands. The original statement makes as much sense as trying to reverse Occam's razor.