4 ms·

Bullshit != Knowledge. Worse, bullshit benefits from the sharp end of Brandolini’s Law.

snerbles 9y ago
“The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.” A blog entry on Brandolini's Law: https://real-psychiatry.blogspot.com/2016/12/brandolinis-law.html https://real-psychiatry.blogspot.com/2016/12/brandolinis-law...
- ak39 9y ago
  I think this could apply to the ratio of coding to debugging too.
  - ghzkvhjk 9y ago
    What a coincidence. I copied this law to my collection of quotes, and the last entry was this: "Everyone knows that debugging is twice as hard as writing a program in the first place. So if you're as clever as you can be when you write it, how will you ever debug it?" -Brian Kernighan
stcredzero 9y ago
There's the old adage: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em! Let's take that seriously. It has always been much easier to imitate the semblance of meaning than it was to find the substantively meaningful. Things with only the semblance of meaning have always proliferated. Idle talk, children's rhymes, songs, music, myths... all of these have always proliferated. Why did they not drown out actual meaning? I think the above is one of the key questions for the survival of humanity. A part of the answer is that there has never been a clear demarcation between the meaningful and meaningless. There is valuable information in the structure of myth, songs, and idle talk. It is clear that something in human beings acts as an effective filter for meaning and value. It is also clear that rationality isn't the totality of whatever this is, though it might be a part of it.
- telchar 9y ago
  I would argue that those things historically have drowned out actual meaning, if by actual meaning you mean factually correct and significant information. Only with the advent of science have we been able to reliably sort the meaningless from the meaningful. I think the major concern here, aside from the general deleterious effects of addiction of any sort on people, is that the tide of meaningless factoids and useless information is swelling and drowning out substantive, useful information which is generated with greater difficulty and spreads less easily. A greater ratio of meaninglessness to meaningfulness is part of the problem, compounded by the aggressive way our attention is directed toward it. I think the filter you mention exists but is struggling in this environment more than in the recent past.
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    I would argue that those things historically have drowned out actual meaning, Which is precisely why humanity didn't progress, never invented science, never improved human rights and the standard of living, and we died out in a state of primitive brutishness. Clearly, actual meaning has found its way through, somehow. I think the filter you mention exists but is struggling in this environment more than in the recent past. What is your evidence for this? Can you quantify this in objective terms?
    - telchar 9y ago
      In comparison to the last few hundred years, and with a few notable exceptions in time and place, we have spent the great majority of the past not progressing. Compare the progress made from 10000 BCE to 1700 CE to the progress made since. The rate isn't zero but comparatively very low. That said, I haven't put much thought into this viewpoint and was mostly extending the parent poster's idea. Proper discussion of this would require a great deal of care and nuance and I honestly don't feel like putting in the effort for that. Apologies if you were looking for a substantive debate.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

“The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.” A blog entry on Brandolini's Law: https://real-psychiatry.blogspot.com/2016/12/brandolinis-law.html https://real-psychiatry.blogspot.com/2016/12/brandolinis-law...

ak39 9y ago
I think this could apply to the ratio of coding to debugging too.
- ghzkvhjk 9y ago
  What a coincidence. I copied this law to my collection of quotes, and the last entry was this: "Everyone knows that debugging is twice as hard as writing a program in the first place. So if you're as clever as you can be when you write it, how will you ever debug it?" -Brian Kernighan

stcredzero 9y ago

There's the old adage: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em! Let's take that seriously. It has always been much easier to imitate the semblance of meaning than it was to find the substantively meaningful. Things with only the semblance of meaning have always proliferated. Idle talk, children's rhymes, songs, music, myths... all of these have always proliferated. Why did they not drown out actual meaning? I think the above is one of the key questions for the survival of humanity. A part of the answer is that there has never been a clear demarcation between the meaningful and meaningless. There is valuable information in the structure of myth, songs, and idle talk. It is clear that something in human beings acts as an effective filter for meaning and value. It is also clear that rationality isn't the totality of whatever this is, though it might be a part of it.

telchar 9y ago
I would argue that those things historically have drowned out actual meaning, if by actual meaning you mean factually correct and significant information. Only with the advent of science have we been able to reliably sort the meaningless from the meaningful. I think the major concern here, aside from the general deleterious effects of addiction of any sort on people, is that the tide of meaningless factoids and useless information is swelling and drowning out substantive, useful information which is generated with greater difficulty and spreads less easily. A greater ratio of meaninglessness to meaningfulness is part of the problem, compounded by the aggressive way our attention is directed toward it. I think the filter you mention exists but is struggling in this environment more than in the recent past.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  I would argue that those things historically have drowned out actual meaning, Which is precisely why humanity didn't progress, never invented science, never improved human rights and the standard of living, and we died out in a state of primitive brutishness. Clearly, actual meaning has found its way through, somehow. I think the filter you mention exists but is struggling in this environment more than in the recent past. What is your evidence for this? Can you quantify this in objective terms?
  - telchar 9y ago
    In comparison to the last few hundred years, and with a few notable exceptions in time and place, we have spent the great majority of the past not progressing. Compare the progress made from 10000 BCE to 1700 CE to the progress made since. The rate isn't zero but comparatively very low. That said, I haven't put much thought into this viewpoint and was mostly extending the parent poster's idea. Proper discussion of this would require a great deal of care and nuance and I honestly don't feel like putting in the effort for that. Apologies if you were looking for a substantive debate.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]