5 ms·

Well you can always connect a false statement to another simpler false statement to make your idea easier to understand. Or you can show how if something were t

by hhm 18y ago

Well you can always connect a false statement to another simpler false statement to make your idea easier to understand. Or you can show how if something were true, it would contradict with some obvious truth, and so on. This is not a cause, but it helps for your argument. Otherwise, we could all go pointing random ideas as false, anyway we haven't to explain why they are false, couldn't we? Edit: also, maybe you don't like blue after all :)

pg 18y ago
The point is, there's never an explanation for why something isn't true.
- hhm 18y ago
  I don't agree. You can explain why something is true, right? (at least in some cases, not for all cases, you know, Gödel and all that). In such cases you can actually explain, it follows that if X is true, !X isn't true, and you have an obvious explaination for that. Example: why is my shirt red? Because I only have red shirts on my house. Why isn't my shirt blue? Please refer to the previous explaination of why it's red, then it follows it can't be at the same time red and blue, etc etc. And it's great it's like this, because otherwise we could be saying a lot of random predicates are false and no one could argue with us. So I think asking someone "why x is false" isn't illogical, after all if there is a reason to say "x is false", surely there is a way to prove it's false indeed. Edit: part of the problem with this discussion, of course, is that there is not a fixed meaning for "why". "Why" is a very ambiguous question, it doesn't specify whether we want to know the intention, the proof, the cause, etc. And even, what is a cause? If you are talking about historic events indeed you can't explain why X didn't happen, but from the same pov you couldn't ever explain why Y did happen at all, if you see history as something deterministic & linear. So whether you're right or wrong actually depends on what you see on the word why...
  - byrneseyeview 18y ago
    I don't understand this argument. When someone says "Why don't you... X?" are you going to enumerate all the things you'd rather do than X, and then explain that the effort involved in doing those things precludes X? Or are you just going to say "That's a stupid question. Tell me why I should."
    - hhm 18y ago
      Well, enumerating a finite list of things is not something you wouldn't do in a math proof. Now if I say: X="primes are all multiples of three", "why isn't X true?", there are many obvious answers to that. For starters, because there's at least an element of primes (7), that is not a multiple of three. That should be enough to disprove: "there's never an explanation for why something isn't true", and that's the point. I would have preferred a simple explaination of why PG thinks X isn't true than the assertion that such a thing can't be explained (actually I suspect he was being humourous or something like that, obviously he has to have a reason to think like he thinks). Also, you can always reply: "because I don't want to!", or "because I have other things to do", or "because I don't see a reason to" (it's like asking "why should I..?"), to "why don't you ... X?" :)
  - Alex3917 18y ago
    My thesis for this essay is that the Great Gatsby is not an allegory for animal beastiality. First of all, Gatsby contains no animal characters. Because of this, the likelihood that F. Scott Fitzgerald's work was a veiled reference to man-on-animal love is very low. Second, there is no evidence than any of the characters are attracted to animals. While Gatsby does have an attraction to Daisy, there is nothing in the text to indicate that her character metaphorically embodies animalistic qualities. In conclusion, there is no possible way that the Great Gatsby represents an attempt to introduce zoophilia to mainstream American society. After examining all of the evidence one can clearly see that this simply cannot be the case.
    - hugh 18y ago
      I disagree. First of all, Gatsby contains no animal characters. The Great Gatsby contains two dogs and a cat. While none are given names, one of the dogs (an Airedale bought by Myrtle Wilson) appears several times and has some identifiable characteristics. Second, there is no evidence than any of the characters are attracted to animals. In fact, it contains this scene: "She looked at me and laughed pointlessly. Then she flounced over to the dog, kissed it with ecstasy and swept into the kitchen, implying that a dozen chefs awaited her orders there." In conclusion, although bestiality is not one of the novel's primary themes, there is evidence that at least one character makes out with a dog at some point. Please note: the only reason I have time to go and grep -iw gatsby.txt for "dog" is that I'm waiting for the program I'm writing to finish executing. This is why speed is important in exploratory programming.
  - pg 18y ago
    You can sometimes prove that something is not the case, but you can't explain why it is not the case. E.g. it's fairly easy to prove that Boston is not in Oklahoma, but there's no explanation for why it's not.
    - Husafan 18y ago
      This may be true of facts, but there is no problem with explaining why your opinion is one way and not the other. Unless you are asserting that speed not being important is a fact of exploratory programming, rather than PG's opinion, I see no problem with answering my initial question. If it makes you feel better though, I can rephrase: Why is speed not important to you, PG?
      - pg 18y ago
        There's still no answer to that question. If I needed speed, I could explain why. But there's no answer to the question of why you don't need speed. I need a bottle opener to get the lid off a bottle. I need it because I need to bend the lid. I don't need a scarf to get the lid off a bottle. Why not? There's no reason you don't need a scarf to get the lid off a bottle; it's just not that useful.
        Husafan 18y ago
        Fair enough. I see your point and thank you for your patience. If I may give this one last shot: Why is slowness acceptable in a language tuned towards exploratory programming, and therefore an unimportant criteria when judging Arc?
    - nonrecursive 18y ago
      Once, in college, I visited one of my professors and his wife. In the middle of a conversation the wife asked, "Why isn't this ink refill small enough to fit in this pen?" His answer was an amused, "What kind of existential question is that?"
    - hhm 18y ago
      This is semantics, it depends on what meaning you give the word "why"... you are talking about why as in causes here, but I don't think that was what you were asked about when somebody said "why isn't speed important?" "Boston is not in Oklahoma because it's in Massachusetts, and Oklahoma and Massachusetts are two separate states and no city can belong to two states at once (afaik)." Doesn't that sound like an explaination? Now, an explaination of "why isn't speed important", could be, for example, that it's not important because it doesn't affect your final productivity at all, or at least not in a considerable way compared to some N other factors. Now, what's the cause of such a difference in the final users' productivity, maybe that can't be answered. But I don't think you were asked about it. Sorry for wasting your time with this discussion, but I don't really see your point. Maybe I'm wrong after all but until now I don't see how that could be.
radu_floricica 18y ago
Try to honestly answer the question: "Why is the color of the programmer's shirt not important for his productivity?" It's hard, because it _could_ be. The only way to properly answer is to take a random sample of programmers and show that there is no statistical difference. This doesn't say anything about weather speed is important or not, of course. But it does give an idea that statistics (or practical experience) might be involved. Just remember, random sample = good, anecdotal evidence = bad.
- hhm 18y ago
  I don't see how this relates to the original argument. It doesn't help explain you can or can't say why something isn't true. And anyway, it wouldn't be easier to respond "why is the color of the programmer's shirt important ...?" than its negation.
  - radu_floricica 18y ago
    I think that's kindof the point... it's easier to ask the affirmative form then the negative, ie it's easier to prove then disprove. Anyways, this meta-discussion has gone long enough anyways. I'm having too hard a time following it. Can't we go back arc and exploratory languages, please? :)
    - hhm 18y ago
      You are right, we are very off topic now :) back to Arc.

by hhm 18y ago

pg 18y ago

The point is, there's never an explanation for why something isn't true.

hhm 18y ago
I don't agree. You can explain why something is true, right? (at least in some cases, not for all cases, you know, Gödel and all that). In such cases you can actually explain, it follows that if X is true, !X isn't true, and you have an obvious explaination for that. Example: why is my shirt red? Because I only have red shirts on my house. Why isn't my shirt blue? Please refer to the previous explaination of why it's red, then it follows it can't be at the same time red and blue, etc etc. And it's great it's like this, because otherwise we could be saying a lot of random predicates are false and no one could argue with us. So I think asking someone "why x is false" isn't illogical, after all if there is a reason to say "x is false", surely there is a way to prove it's false indeed. Edit: part of the problem with this discussion, of course, is that there is not a fixed meaning for "why". "Why" is a very ambiguous question, it doesn't specify whether we want to know the intention, the proof, the cause, etc. And even, what is a cause? If you are talking about historic events indeed you can't explain why X didn't happen, but from the same pov you couldn't ever explain why Y did happen at all, if you see history as something deterministic & linear. So whether you're right or wrong actually depends on what you see on the word why...
- byrneseyeview 18y ago
  I don't understand this argument. When someone says "Why don't you... X?" are you going to enumerate all the things you'd rather do than X, and then explain that the effort involved in doing those things precludes X? Or are you just going to say "That's a stupid question. Tell me why I should."
  - hhm 18y ago
    Well, enumerating a finite list of things is not something you wouldn't do in a math proof. Now if I say: X="primes are all multiples of three", "why isn't X true?", there are many obvious answers to that. For starters, because there's at least an element of primes (7), that is not a multiple of three. That should be enough to disprove: "there's never an explanation for why something isn't true", and that's the point. I would have preferred a simple explaination of why PG thinks X isn't true than the assertion that such a thing can't be explained (actually I suspect he was being humourous or something like that, obviously he has to have a reason to think like he thinks). Also, you can always reply: "because I don't want to!", or "because I have other things to do", or "because I don't see a reason to" (it's like asking "why should I..?"), to "why don't you ... X?" :)
- Alex3917 18y ago
  My thesis for this essay is that the Great Gatsby is not an allegory for animal beastiality. First of all, Gatsby contains no animal characters. Because of this, the likelihood that F. Scott Fitzgerald's work was a veiled reference to man-on-animal love is very low. Second, there is no evidence than any of the characters are attracted to animals. While Gatsby does have an attraction to Daisy, there is nothing in the text to indicate that her character metaphorically embodies animalistic qualities. In conclusion, there is no possible way that the Great Gatsby represents an attempt to introduce zoophilia to mainstream American society. After examining all of the evidence one can clearly see that this simply cannot be the case.
  - hugh 18y ago
    I disagree. First of all, Gatsby contains no animal characters. The Great Gatsby contains two dogs and a cat. While none are given names, one of the dogs (an Airedale bought by Myrtle Wilson) appears several times and has some identifiable characteristics. Second, there is no evidence than any of the characters are attracted to animals. In fact, it contains this scene: "She looked at me and laughed pointlessly. Then she flounced over to the dog, kissed it with ecstasy and swept into the kitchen, implying that a dozen chefs awaited her orders there." In conclusion, although bestiality is not one of the novel's primary themes, there is evidence that at least one character makes out with a dog at some point. Please note: the only reason I have time to go and grep -iw gatsby.txt for "dog" is that I'm waiting for the program I'm writing to finish executing. This is why speed is important in exploratory programming.
- pg 18y ago
  You can sometimes prove that something is not the case, but you can't explain why it is not the case. E.g. it's fairly easy to prove that Boston is not in Oklahoma, but there's no explanation for why it's not.
  - Husafan 18y ago
    This may be true of facts, but there is no problem with explaining why your opinion is one way and not the other. Unless you are asserting that speed not being important is a fact of exploratory programming, rather than PG's opinion, I see no problem with answering my initial question. If it makes you feel better though, I can rephrase: Why is speed not important to you, PG?
    - pg 18y ago
      There's still no answer to that question. If I needed speed, I could explain why. But there's no answer to the question of why you don't need speed. I need a bottle opener to get the lid off a bottle. I need it because I need to bend the lid. I don't need a scarf to get the lid off a bottle. Why not? There's no reason you don't need a scarf to get the lid off a bottle; it's just not that useful.
      - Husafan 18y ago
        Fair enough. I see your point and thank you for your patience. If I may give this one last shot: Why is slowness acceptable in a language tuned towards exploratory programming, and therefore an unimportant criteria when judging Arc?
  - nonrecursive 18y ago
    Once, in college, I visited one of my professors and his wife. In the middle of a conversation the wife asked, "Why isn't this ink refill small enough to fit in this pen?" His answer was an amused, "What kind of existential question is that?"
  - hhm 18y ago
    This is semantics, it depends on what meaning you give the word "why"... you are talking about why as in causes here, but I don't think that was what you were asked about when somebody said "why isn't speed important?" "Boston is not in Oklahoma because it's in Massachusetts, and Oklahoma and Massachusetts are two separate states and no city can belong to two states at once (afaik)." Doesn't that sound like an explaination? Now, an explaination of "why isn't speed important", could be, for example, that it's not important because it doesn't affect your final productivity at all, or at least not in a considerable way compared to some N other factors. Now, what's the cause of such a difference in the final users' productivity, maybe that can't be answered. But I don't think you were asked about it. Sorry for wasting your time with this discussion, but I don't really see your point. Maybe I'm wrong after all but until now I don't see how that could be.

radu_floricica 18y ago

Try to honestly answer the question: "Why is the color of the programmer's shirt not important for his productivity?" It's hard, because it _could_ be. The only way to properly answer is to take a random sample of programmers and show that there is no statistical difference. This doesn't say anything about weather speed is important or not, of course. But it does give an idea that statistics (or practical experience) might be involved. Just remember, random sample = good, anecdotal evidence = bad.

hhm 18y ago
I don't see how this relates to the original argument. It doesn't help explain you can or can't say why something isn't true. And anyway, it wouldn't be easier to respond "why is the color of the programmer's shirt important ...?" than its negation.
- radu_floricica 18y ago
  I think that's kindof the point... it's easier to ask the affirmative form then the negative, ie it's easier to prove then disprove. Anyways, this meta-discussion has gone long enough anyways. I'm having too hard a time following it. Can't we go back arc and exploratory languages, please? :)
  - hhm 18y ago
    You are right, we are very off topic now :) back to Arc.