3 ms·

that's just not true. non-recorded performance art is still art.

1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
The statement is qualified ("most works of art"). Non-recorded performance art is indeed a form of art, but, IMO, it does not comprise "most works of art". I should probably have further qualified the statement to works memorialised in a tangible medium. Programming usually implies "code" that is recorded to a tangible medium. It is usually expected that the "code" may be looked at again after it is recorded.
- runnerup 5y ago
  I mean, if you want to bring formal logic into this with "(Therefore), the statement is true", then I suppose we can go forth, apply the rules of formal logic, and see what happens. Perhaps I make errors in my analysis and someone can set me straight. It's very strange for you to be that pedantic about the supporting clause without being at all critical of the independent clause. You defended the supporting clause but completely ignored the primary/independent. Independent clause: "This goes against the idea that software is "art" Supporting clause: "...in the sense that most works of art are created to physically endure over time." I was arguing against the primary clause, as it was immediately obvious to me at first read that superficially combining the two clauses yields a "Fallacy of existentialism" (more accurately, it violates the rule that anything distributed in the conclusion must be distributed in at least one premise...but the less correct short quote is easier for readers of this comment to DDG). Laid plainly: A: "Software is not created to endure over time." B: "Some works of art are created to physically endure over time." C: "Therefore, Software is not art." That's not very logical at all. In fact, upon reflection you'll find that I was not arguing against a "straw man" version of their original 'weasel-word' assertion. Instead, before replying(!), I purposefully removed the logical fallacy in an attempt to "steel-man" their argument. I figured that if I could show that a charitably non-fallacious argument of the same character was horribly flawed, that most readers could intuit that any weaker versions of the "steel-man'd" argument would also be some kind of wrong. On a personal note, some unorganized thoughts I'd like to share which I might be convinced to change my beliefs about: I feel that people don't "get" that one can't just add weasel words to magically make a bulletproof argument with instant "gotcha"-trap potential against anyone who tries to rebut their bad/unthoughtful assertions. It's hard (for me) to find examples where weasel words don't do at least one of the following: - Weaken the argument to the point of saying something which is still 100% true and specific, but so trivial/impactless that it doesn't matter in any meaningful application. "Some children receive higher test scores after switching from drinking Pepsi to drinking Coca-Cola". - Create a tautology (a non-falsifiable statement that literally adds nothing to any discussion). "No, really! It very well might be possible that Tupac is still alive!" - Creates a logical fallacy which means that the statement is meaningless. "This goes against the idea that software is "art" in the sense that most works of art are created to physically endure over time." Hopefully this write-up helps other people think, read, and comment more clearly because it took me 40 minutes to craft a complete response to a couple of 20-second Markov Chain comments. The asymmetry is real.
- runnerup 5y ago
  Readers please note my response beginning "if you want to bring formal logic into this..." makes a lot less sense now and cannot be edited at this time. The original version I replied to before editing was: > The statement is qualified ("most works of art"). Non-recorded performance art is not most art. Hence, the statement is true.

The statement is qualified ("most works of art"). Non-recorded performance art is indeed a form of art, but, IMO, it does not comprise "most works of art". I should probably have further qualified the statement to works memorialised in a tangible medium. Programming usually implies "code" that is recorded to a tangible medium. It is usually expected that the "code" may be looked at again after it is recorded.

runnerup 5y ago
I mean, if you want to bring formal logic into this with "(Therefore), the statement is true", then I suppose we can go forth, apply the rules of formal logic, and see what happens. Perhaps I make errors in my analysis and someone can set me straight. It's very strange for you to be that pedantic about the supporting clause without being at all critical of the independent clause. You defended the supporting clause but completely ignored the primary/independent. Independent clause: "This goes against the idea that software is "art" Supporting clause: "...in the sense that most works of art are created to physically endure over time." I was arguing against the primary clause, as it was immediately obvious to me at first read that superficially combining the two clauses yields a "Fallacy of existentialism" (more accurately, it violates the rule that anything distributed in the conclusion must be distributed in at least one premise...but the less correct short quote is easier for readers of this comment to DDG). Laid plainly: A: "Software is not created to endure over time." B: "Some works of art are created to physically endure over time." C: "Therefore, Software is not art." That's not very logical at all. In fact, upon reflection you'll find that I was not arguing against a "straw man" version of their original 'weasel-word' assertion. Instead, before replying(!), I purposefully removed the logical fallacy in an attempt to "steel-man" their argument. I figured that if I could show that a charitably non-fallacious argument of the same character was horribly flawed, that most readers could intuit that any weaker versions of the "steel-man'd" argument would also be some kind of wrong. On a personal note, some unorganized thoughts I'd like to share which I might be convinced to change my beliefs about: I feel that people don't "get" that one can't just add weasel words to magically make a bulletproof argument with instant "gotcha"-trap potential against anyone who tries to rebut their bad/unthoughtful assertions. It's hard (for me) to find examples where weasel words don't do at least one of the following: - Weaken the argument to the point of saying something which is still 100% true and specific, but so trivial/impactless that it doesn't matter in any meaningful application. "Some children receive higher test scores after switching from drinking Pepsi to drinking Coca-Cola". - Create a tautology (a non-falsifiable statement that literally adds nothing to any discussion). "No, really! It very well might be possible that Tupac is still alive!" - Creates a logical fallacy which means that the statement is meaningless. "This goes against the idea that software is "art" in the sense that most works of art are created to physically endure over time." Hopefully this write-up helps other people think, read, and comment more clearly because it took me 40 minutes to craft a complete response to a couple of 20-second Markov Chain comments. The asymmetry is real.
runnerup 5y ago
Readers please note my response beginning "if you want to bring formal logic into this..." makes a lot less sense now and cannot be edited at this time. The original version I replied to before editing was: > The statement is qualified ("most works of art"). Non-recorded performance art is not most art. Hence, the statement is true.