4 ms·

It seems like the causal answer of "the sky is blue because the atmosphere scatters electromagnetic radiation from the sun and tends to scatter shorter-waveleng

It seems like the causal answer of "the sky is blue because the atmosphere scatters electromagnetic radiation from the sun and tends to scatter shorter-wavelength blue light more" is both more clear and less imbued with the moral context brought about by the use of "harmful". When you say harmful, it calls to question "harmful to whom and why?", which is important in its own right but wasn't part of the original question "why is the sky blue"? I agree that it's important to look at the context, the purpose-driven layers surrounding the "purpose of the sky being blue", but I think that in this case the causal answer is the more concise and confined.

sam0x17 5y ago
Yeah I'm merely showing there is a way of answering this question in terms of "purpose" as defined in the article. The blue sky example clearly isn't the zinger OP intended it to be.
- oefnak 5y ago
  The point is, defining something through its purpose, is sometimes nonsensical, as you have shown (on purpose?). Sometimes - I would say most of the time - a causal definition makes a lot more sense.
  - delusional 5y ago
    Systems thinking (as described in this post) does involve quite a bit of causal thinking as well. Each of the pipes and dotted lines seem to signify a causal relationship. An increase in bugs cause an increase in food consumption. Setting them up as opposites seems unhelpful to me.
    - sam0x17 5y ago
      I think the point was more that causal thinking can involve an incomplete picture, and is often merely a subset of systems thinking. At least that's what I took away. Causal thinking involves analyzing maybe part of a loop, but if you think that's the complete picture, you're missing the rest of the loop.
      - lrobinovitch 5y ago
        I totally agree with this point, but the author confusingly doesn't seem to agree: > Cause and effect will fool you: in a world where everything is looping, there is no cause or effect. But there is purpose, and purpose moves in one direction: it is created, and it is spent.
        sam0x17 5y ago
        I interpreted this to mean "cause and effect analysis helps when you look at how one step connects to the previous step, but when looking at a system you will eventually end up back at your starting point (you go around in a loop) with cause and effect analysis, whereas systems analysis sees the loop as a loop and lets you talk about the whole picture in a useful way. This is why cause and effect analysis is misleading -- because you can go through an entire loop explaining each connection and still miss the larger picture, or rather, the fact that there is a loop/purpose."

sam0x17 5y ago

Yeah I'm merely showing there is a way of answering this question in terms of "purpose" as defined in the article. The blue sky example clearly isn't the zinger OP intended it to be.

oefnak 5y ago
The point is, defining something through its purpose, is sometimes nonsensical, as you have shown (on purpose?). Sometimes - I would say most of the time - a causal definition makes a lot more sense.
- delusional 5y ago
  Systems thinking (as described in this post) does involve quite a bit of causal thinking as well. Each of the pipes and dotted lines seem to signify a causal relationship. An increase in bugs cause an increase in food consumption. Setting them up as opposites seems unhelpful to me.
  - sam0x17 5y ago
    I think the point was more that causal thinking can involve an incomplete picture, and is often merely a subset of systems thinking. At least that's what I took away. Causal thinking involves analyzing maybe part of a loop, but if you think that's the complete picture, you're missing the rest of the loop.
    - lrobinovitch 5y ago
      I totally agree with this point, but the author confusingly doesn't seem to agree: > Cause and effect will fool you: in a world where everything is looping, there is no cause or effect. But there is purpose, and purpose moves in one direction: it is created, and it is spent.
      - sam0x17 5y ago
        I interpreted this to mean "cause and effect analysis helps when you look at how one step connects to the previous step, but when looking at a system you will eventually end up back at your starting point (you go around in a loop) with cause and effect analysis, whereas systems analysis sees the loop as a loop and lets you talk about the whole picture in a useful way. This is why cause and effect analysis is misleading -- because you can go through an entire loop explaining each connection and still miss the larger picture, or rather, the fact that there is a loop/purpose."