2 ms·
I guess I don't read the parable as insisting that we have to keep the fence if we can't find the reason for it after due diligence. It simply doesn't try to sp
by winstonewert 7y ago
I guess I don't read the parable as insisting that we have to keep the fence if we can't find the reason for it after due diligence. It simply doesn't try to speak to that case.
- goto11 7y agoIt is stated quite explicitly in the article: "Do not remove a fence until you know why it was put up in the first place." It follows that you can't remove a fence if you cant figure out why it was created in the first place.
- winstonewert 7y agoWhat are you, some kind of robot? (If so, awesome!) This is natural language, you can't treat it like a statement in predicate logic. Its very common in natural language to state general principles which apply most of the time without intending it to be an iron-clad rule that would apply in any circumstances without exception. For example, if there is a "Stay off the grass" sign, you'd avoid going on the grass, but you'd still go on if the need was important enough. The case of being unable to find the reason is an exceptional circumstance in which the principle does not apply, at least in quite the same way.