4 ms·
These relate directly to the three normative sciences: 1) Logic, the normative science of what is true. 2) Ethics, the normative science of what is good. 3)
by User23 7y ago
These relate directly to the three normative sciences:
1) Logic, the normative science of what is true.
2) Ethics, the normative science of what is good.
3) Aesthetics, the normative science of what is beautiful.
I believe the above formulation is due to Dijkstra, but I can't recall precisely which work I saw it in. He certainly held all three in high esteem and that philosophy was at the root of many of his insights. For example, he explicitly made a distinction between correctness and pleasantness. The former is a matter of logic and the latter is a matter of aesthetics. It follows that they are separate and independent concerns. The vast majority of software is not logically correct, but is nonetheless more or less pleasing to its users.
As for ethics, it's not just for things like the defense industry and medicine. For example the change to the C standard from having a set of permissible responses to undefined behavior to the actively hostile anything goes situation we now have is a matter of ethics. That behavior is both correct in that it satisfies the specification and pleasant in that it allows for aggressive optimization, but it's not very good for the users who get their NULL checks optimized away. Arguments that the bad behavior is correct or allows optimization don't address the ethical concern at all or deny its existence altogether and thus can never refute it.
The normative sciences are remarkable in their broad applicability across domains, which makes them worthy of study by all educated persons, but they are especially important for software developers since we can potentially affect so many people's lives. They even apply here on HN. We should all try to make our contributions true, good (nourishing for intellectual curiosity), and elegant.
- igravious 7y agoAh, a Peircean I see.
- galaxyLogic 7y agoWhat makes me always uneasy about theories like this is it makes me ask "If 3, why not 4?". What reason do we have to assume that these three dimensions 1,2,3 are the only ones there are? Why exactly 3 and why just these 3?
- User23 7y agoThat's a great question. Your cousin comment notes that Peirce has influenced my thought. He had something of a fascination with three because of structural properties. In essence he saw the mathematical relation as a triad and so he considered three in some way essential to logic and what he called semiotic[1]. Some of that has probably rubbed off on me. I don't think it's a magic number, just a common one. I happen to know of three normative sciences. I would gladly learn about a 4th, 5th, or more if they exist, especially if they share the same broad intellectual utility. It can also be a case of lumping versus splitting[2]. Postulating that logic, ethics, and aesthetics together are somehow exhaustive, one could still conceivably divide any of them into further subdivisions and spawn new normative sciences that way. I don't believe that would help me make my thoughts clear to myself or others, but, pleasantly, if someone else discovers that it does help then they will have an easier time convincing me too! Conversely, I can't imagine how lumping any of the three I listed together would be an aid to understanding. [1] Not really what postmodernists mean. See https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce-semiotics/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce-semiotics/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpers_and_splitters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpers_and_splitters
- galaxyLogic 7y agoMakes sense I think. It's good to realize that while 3 dimensions of space would seem to be everything there is and ever can be, newer physical theories have pointed out the possibility of more dimensions. There is no Holy Trinity, unless of course you are a true believer in such things