3 ms·

The logical conclusion to this is that we should not take any action in the face of incomplete information or uncertainty. This is typical of the dogmatic appro

The logical conclusion to this is that we should not take any action in the face of incomplete information or uncertainty. This is typical of the dogmatic approach to reasoning that you find in many religious texts. The action of taking down the fence may not be based on ignorance, so much as curiosity. This could be viewed as subversive, and we can’t have that now can we?

tempguy9999 7y ago
> The action of taking down the fence may not be based on ignorance, so much as curiosity While I sort of agree, it's not about a fence but getting as much info as reasonably possible before acting. Next time you change something you don't understand because of curiosity, there may be injuries or deaths. > This is typical of the dogmatic approach to reasoning that you find in many religious texts That's pretty much what you've done here; taken the extreme view of what I'm trying to say. Back on the subject: the dot matrix printer was not the guy's property and it may have been streaming a hardcopy of some server's intrusion log. That would explain why it was there but nobody looked. It's there in case someone ever needed to. (edit: it's printed door movements, not server stuff. If the doors are opened by badges, it's still movement detection, at least of the most basic, people-y, sort)
charliesharding 7y ago
That isn't at all the logical conclusion. You're projecting your dislike of religion and ironically being just as dogmatic in your dismissal. They were responding to the TLC poster saying they threw away a piece of machinery just because it was loud and they didn't see anyone using it. Given that characterization, would you say they were acting out of curiosity? Curiosity would be asking people what it was for before throwing it away - which is what the parable implores.

3 ms·

The logical conclusion to this is that we should not take any action in the face of incomplete information or uncertainty. This is typical of the dogmatic appro

by flatline 7y ago

tempguy9999 7y ago
> The action of taking down the fence may not be based on ignorance, so much as curiosity While I sort of agree, it's not about a fence but getting as much info as reasonably possible before acting. Next time you change something you don't understand because of curiosity, there may be injuries or deaths. > This is typical of the dogmatic approach to reasoning that you find in many religious texts That's pretty much what you've done here; taken the extreme view of what I'm trying to say. Back on the subject: the dot matrix printer was not the guy's property and it may have been streaming a hardcopy of some server's intrusion log. That would explain why it was there but nobody looked. It's there in case someone ever needed to. (edit: it's printed door movements, not server stuff. If the doors are opened by badges, it's still movement detection, at least of the most basic, people-y, sort)
charliesharding 7y ago
That isn't at all the logical conclusion. You're projecting your dislike of religion and ironically being just as dogmatic in your dismissal. They were responding to the TLC poster saying they threw away a piece of machinery just because it was loud and they didn't see anyone using it. Given that characterization, would you say they were acting out of curiosity? Curiosity would be asking people what it was for before throwing it away - which is what the parable implores.