4 ms·

I think he's making an appropriate reference to Feynman's definition of "cargo cult science" (http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm http://www.lhup.edu/~DS

I think he's making an appropriate reference to Feynman's definition of "cargo cult science" (http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm): "So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential... It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty... In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another."

applicative 16y ago
Why is this 'appropriate' rather than unjust slander against conal and mauke?
- reikonomusha 16y ago
  Because it's not slander against either of them. See the comments.
  - applicative 16y ago
    Oh I hadn't realized I was dealing with another of his sock puppets. It is slander against them as I point out in [my comment on your comment](http://symbo1ics.com/blog/?p=788 http://symbo1ics.com/blog/?p=788) . If you cut out all use of the text from #haskell, it would be just another uninformed farrago of lies about Haskell, like the other one you generate in your comment -- the one about the Monad type class, there are perhaps several other -- which is a criminal slander directed against Philip Wadler in particular. He introduced type classes in the late 80's thinking in particular of ML. See the papers assembled on http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/topics/type-classes.html http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/topics/type-classes.htm... (It is by the way this rather unremarkable use of type classes that is the source of your difficulties). Note that even in the 1995 co-authored paper "Type classes in Haskell" makes no mention of a Monad typeclass; indeed type classes that operate not on individual types, but on type formers like Maybe or IO etc. are no where envisaged. Later, following the lead of Moggi's 'monadic' semantical doctrine, he saw that a programming language could internalize this idea, and moreover that he could introduce a type class Monad into Haskell itself, a move far outstripping anything you could previously have anticipated from the type class concept. Papers on this are to be found here http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/topics/monads.html http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/topics/monads.html Haskell was well under way before this move was made. Type class Monad was a rather late introduction. Now, you declare these actions of Wadler's to be a "use of ... pseudo-mathematics as reasoning in the decision-process for the Haskell language". You suggest that Wadler was unaware that every monad on a category is a functor from the category to itself. And you suggest that Wadler can be brought under this heading: "These individuals assimilate the concepts, and then pervert them, giving them names which are not appropriate — a kind of pseudo-mathematics." This is all outright slander. Here your rigorous mathematical meditation on the pitiful wanna-be and fraud Wadler in full: There are individuals, however, who thrive on the “mysteriousness” afforded by this unapproachability. They revel, rather than find distaste, in the “genius” image pinned to those who can speak in this technical tongue. These individuals assimilate the concepts, and then pervert them, giving them names which are not appropriate — a kind of pseudo-mathematics. Haskell’s Monad is a prime and very uncontrived example. It is impossible to ensure that a monad within Haskell conforms to the monadic axioms (in other words, it is impossible to ensure a monad within Haskell is actually a monad). Furthermore, though it is often regarded as a historical mistake, monads in Haskell are not instances of the Functor type class. This is particularly strange, because monads in category theory are functors by definition. By considering the use of this pseudo-mathematics as reasoning in the decision-process for the Haskell language, we arrive at the conundrum described in the post. Claiming mathematics as the reasoning for such errors contradicts the flagrant disregard for mathematical correctness with Monad or Num, for example. It is this contradiction with which I take severe offense.
Confusion 16y ago
I downvoted you, because we may assume jemfinch and other readers understand the reference (or will look it up) and concluded this isn't a case of 'cargo-cult'-anything. In response, you merely cite the source where the phrase is coined, without explaining why this would be an instance of it, even though there is obviously disagreement on exactly that. This is not an example of 'cargo-cult', because we are not dealing with people going through motions without knowing why. Asserting such is just insulting the creators of Haskell/the Prelude/standard Haskell classes, who are obviously making trade offs and perhaps, gasp mistakes. Being wrong, impure or simply making choices some others disagree with does not make one a 'cargo cult' anything. Feynman must be turning in his grave.
- gammarator 16y ago
  jemfinch suggested that the author did not understand the phrase, but it was not obvious to me that jemfinch understood it--a "cargo cult" and "cargo cult science/mathematics" are two different concepts, and I find physics literacy on HN rather low. By "appropriate," I meant to suggest the author's usage of it can be construed as consistent with Feynman's meaning. I linked the source so folks could decide for themselves if the author's claim was correct in addition to having a meaning we could all agree on. [I don't know anything about Haskell, I was just trying (and apparently failing) to clarify some muddy discourse.]
  - applicative 16y ago
    To people who had read the essay and were familiar with the post-Feynman epithet "cargo cult X" it will have been plain that jemfinch knew what it meant and that the original author was clueless about how to apply it.

applicative 16y ago

Why is this 'appropriate' rather than unjust slander against conal and mauke?

reikonomusha 16y ago
Because it's not slander against either of them. See the comments.
- applicative 16y ago
  Oh I hadn't realized I was dealing with another of his sock puppets. It is slander against them as I point out in [my comment on your comment](http://symbo1ics.com/blog/?p=788 http://symbo1ics.com/blog/?p=788) . If you cut out all use of the text from #haskell, it would be just another uninformed farrago of lies about Haskell, like the other one you generate in your comment -- the one about the Monad type class, there are perhaps several other -- which is a criminal slander directed against Philip Wadler in particular. He introduced type classes in the late 80's thinking in particular of ML. See the papers assembled on http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/topics/type-classes.html http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/topics/type-classes.htm... (It is by the way this rather unremarkable use of type classes that is the source of your difficulties). Note that even in the 1995 co-authored paper "Type classes in Haskell" makes no mention of a Monad typeclass; indeed type classes that operate not on individual types, but on type formers like Maybe or IO etc. are no where envisaged. Later, following the lead of Moggi's 'monadic' semantical doctrine, he saw that a programming language could internalize this idea, and moreover that he could introduce a type class Monad into Haskell itself, a move far outstripping anything you could previously have anticipated from the type class concept. Papers on this are to be found here http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/topics/monads.html http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/topics/monads.html Haskell was well under way before this move was made. Type class Monad was a rather late introduction. Now, you declare these actions of Wadler's to be a "use of ... pseudo-mathematics as reasoning in the decision-process for the Haskell language". You suggest that Wadler was unaware that every monad on a category is a functor from the category to itself. And you suggest that Wadler can be brought under this heading: "These individuals assimilate the concepts, and then pervert them, giving them names which are not appropriate — a kind of pseudo-mathematics." This is all outright slander. Here your rigorous mathematical meditation on the pitiful wanna-be and fraud Wadler in full: There are individuals, however, who thrive on the “mysteriousness” afforded by this unapproachability. They revel, rather than find distaste, in the “genius” image pinned to those who can speak in this technical tongue. These individuals assimilate the concepts, and then pervert them, giving them names which are not appropriate — a kind of pseudo-mathematics. Haskell’s Monad is a prime and very uncontrived example. It is impossible to ensure that a monad within Haskell conforms to the monadic axioms (in other words, it is impossible to ensure a monad within Haskell is actually a monad). Furthermore, though it is often regarded as a historical mistake, monads in Haskell are not instances of the Functor type class. This is particularly strange, because monads in category theory are functors by definition. By considering the use of this pseudo-mathematics as reasoning in the decision-process for the Haskell language, we arrive at the conundrum described in the post. Claiming mathematics as the reasoning for such errors contradicts the flagrant disregard for mathematical correctness with Monad or Num, for example. It is this contradiction with which I take severe offense.

Confusion 16y ago

I downvoted you, because we may assume jemfinch and other readers understand the reference (or will look it up) and concluded this isn't a case of 'cargo-cult'-anything. In response, you merely cite the source where the phrase is coined, without explaining why this would be an instance of it, even though there is obviously disagreement on exactly that. This is not an example of 'cargo-cult', because we are not dealing with people going through motions without knowing why. Asserting such is just insulting the creators of Haskell/the Prelude/standard Haskell classes, who are obviously making trade offs and perhaps, gasp mistakes. Being wrong, impure or simply making choices some others disagree with does not make one a 'cargo cult' anything. Feynman must be turning in his grave.

gammarator 16y ago
jemfinch suggested that the author did not understand the phrase, but it was not obvious to me that jemfinch understood it--a "cargo cult" and "cargo cult science/mathematics" are two different concepts, and I find physics literacy on HN rather low. By "appropriate," I meant to suggest the author's usage of it can be construed as consistent with Feynman's meaning. I linked the source so folks could decide for themselves if the author's claim was correct in addition to having a meaning we could all agree on. [I don't know anything about Haskell, I was just trying (and apparently failing) to clarify some muddy discourse.]
- applicative 16y ago
  To people who had read the essay and were familiar with the post-Feynman epithet "cargo cult X" it will have been plain that jemfinch knew what it meant and that the original author was clueless about how to apply it.