4 ms·

This is usually put forward as a conservative parable. I'm not sure it necessarily takes a position there. It does not assert that the fence should not be remov

by api 7y ago

This is usually put forward as a conservative parable. I'm not sure it necessarily takes a position there. It does not assert that the fence should not be removed, just that one should make the effort of attempting to understand its context prior to doing so.

jameshart 7y ago
It privileges status-quo-bias over novelty-bias. Both biases are bad (neither is a substitute for reason), but Chesterton's fence presumes that status-quo-bias is less harmful. Which is fine if you like the status quo. Fundamentally, conservatism says 'things are generally fine, change will probably make things worse'. Progressivism says 'things could be better, change is necessary to make things improve.' Chesterton's fence is preserved by default because Chesterton assumes it's not doing any harm.
- voiper1 7y ago
  I don't believe this is a true understanding of Chesterton. He doesn't believe either that the status quo is good or that progress will probably make things worse. The issue is being ignorant of why things are the way they are. One aspect the author put is that people are lazy, so there must have been a good reason. More subtly, human emotions and ideals could have evolved to this current situation. If you don't know the reason for the current situation, then your new "solution" is lacking knowledge and you should have realized that.
  - jameshart 7y ago
    How deep do you want to go on 'the reason' for the current situation? What kinds of 'causes' do you admit as constituting a valid understanding of the situation? Why is the question we're interested in only 'Why was the fence built?' What about: 'Why is the fence still there?' or 'Why do we keep maintaining this fence?' or 'Why wasn't a wall built?' or 'Why are you so invested in the continued existence of this fence?'
    - winstonewert 7y ago
      What makes you think anybody is only interested in "Why was the fence built?" and not these other questions? I think these are all good question that Chesterton thinks you should be asking. The point is that the one who tears down fences or ceases maintaining fences without asking these questions is a fool.
      - jameshart 7y ago
        again, you’re putting the burden of proof only on the person who wants to change. Why isn’t it also an equal obligation on those who want to maintain the fence to justify that? Keeping the fence is not free of costs. Implicit in Chesterton’s parable is the idea that those who preserve things have understanding, while those who would change things do not. That is why it is seen as a conservative parable.
        winstonewert 7y ago
        Who said anything about a burden of proof? The point is that you can't make an informed decision about whether or not the status quo is a good idea unless you understand the reasons behind the status quo. If you don't understand the reasons behind the status quo, your opinion is worth diddly squat one way or the other. That applies equally whether you are inclined to keep the status quo or reject the status quo. So, to me at least, the parable isn't about privileging the status quo but about making informed decisions. Someone who assumes the status quo is without merit is not making an informed decision.
winstonewert 7y ago
Indeed, I've always find it a little bizarre that anyone objects. Do they really think the best strategy is not to find out why the fence is there before removing it?
- esyir 7y ago
  To be honest, I was very much of the "change for the sake of change is good" when I was younger.
- goto11 7y ago
  The issue is when nobody really knows...the fence have just been there as long as anybody remember. Then people start to make up justification. Maybe the fence protect against trolls? Maybe the fence is important for the moral character of the population, and if it is removed people will think there are no limits to anything and will soon descend into murder and cannibalism. Better safe than sorry!
  - api 7y ago
    The issue is also when the fence was there for horrible reasons, e.g. "that fence is there to keep the underclass in their ghetto." Of course I suppose it still works in that case. You found the reason. The reason sucked. Therefore, remove it.
  - winstonewert 7y ago
    Is that an objection against the story's point? The fact that people might come up with silly/nonsensical/bad justifications for the fence doesn't seem undermine the importance of doing due diligence to determine if there is a good reason for the fence in the first place.
    - goto11 7y ago
      Due diligence is great, but it is an objection against the default stance of keeping the fence if you can't explain why it is there. The fence becomes onions in the varnish or cargo cult. At least in software development it is poison to have too many "we cant change that area of the code, nobody understand what it does". Sometimes you just have to tear down the fence and observe the consequences.

by api 7y ago

jameshart 7y ago

It privileges status-quo-bias over novelty-bias. Both biases are bad (neither is a substitute for reason), but Chesterton's fence presumes that status-quo-bias is less harmful. Which is fine if you like the status quo. Fundamentally, conservatism says 'things are generally fine, change will probably make things worse'. Progressivism says 'things could be better, change is necessary to make things improve.' Chesterton's fence is preserved by default because Chesterton assumes it's not doing any harm.

voiper1 7y ago
I don't believe this is a true understanding of Chesterton. He doesn't believe either that the status quo is good or that progress will probably make things worse. The issue is being ignorant of why things are the way they are. One aspect the author put is that people are lazy, so there must have been a good reason. More subtly, human emotions and ideals could have evolved to this current situation. If you don't know the reason for the current situation, then your new "solution" is lacking knowledge and you should have realized that.
- jameshart 7y ago
  How deep do you want to go on 'the reason' for the current situation? What kinds of 'causes' do you admit as constituting a valid understanding of the situation? Why is the question we're interested in only 'Why was the fence built?' What about: 'Why is the fence still there?' or 'Why do we keep maintaining this fence?' or 'Why wasn't a wall built?' or 'Why are you so invested in the continued existence of this fence?'
  - winstonewert 7y ago
    What makes you think anybody is only interested in "Why was the fence built?" and not these other questions? I think these are all good question that Chesterton thinks you should be asking. The point is that the one who tears down fences or ceases maintaining fences without asking these questions is a fool.
    - jameshart 7y ago
      again, you’re putting the burden of proof only on the person who wants to change. Why isn’t it also an equal obligation on those who want to maintain the fence to justify that? Keeping the fence is not free of costs. Implicit in Chesterton’s parable is the idea that those who preserve things have understanding, while those who would change things do not. That is why it is seen as a conservative parable.
      - winstonewert 7y ago
        Who said anything about a burden of proof? The point is that you can't make an informed decision about whether or not the status quo is a good idea unless you understand the reasons behind the status quo. If you don't understand the reasons behind the status quo, your opinion is worth diddly squat one way or the other. That applies equally whether you are inclined to keep the status quo or reject the status quo. So, to me at least, the parable isn't about privileging the status quo but about making informed decisions. Someone who assumes the status quo is without merit is not making an informed decision.

winstonewert 7y ago

Indeed, I've always find it a little bizarre that anyone objects. Do they really think the best strategy is not to find out why the fence is there before removing it?

esyir 7y ago
To be honest, I was very much of the "change for the sake of change is good" when I was younger.
goto11 7y ago
The issue is when nobody really knows...the fence have just been there as long as anybody remember. Then people start to make up justification. Maybe the fence protect against trolls? Maybe the fence is important for the moral character of the population, and if it is removed people will think there are no limits to anything and will soon descend into murder and cannibalism. Better safe than sorry!
- api 7y ago
  The issue is also when the fence was there for horrible reasons, e.g. "that fence is there to keep the underclass in their ghetto." Of course I suppose it still works in that case. You found the reason. The reason sucked. Therefore, remove it.
- winstonewert 7y ago
  Is that an objection against the story's point? The fact that people might come up with silly/nonsensical/bad justifications for the fence doesn't seem undermine the importance of doing due diligence to determine if there is a good reason for the fence in the first place.
  - goto11 7y ago
    Due diligence is great, but it is an objection against the default stance of keeping the fence if you can't explain why it is there. The fence becomes onions in the varnish or cargo cult. At least in software development it is poison to have too many "we cant change that area of the code, nobody understand what it does". Sometimes you just have to tear down the fence and observe the consequences.