5 ms·
Chesterton's fence is satisfied here: it asks us to know why a rule was put into place so that we know we aren't missing something when we change it. In this c
by YokoZar 5y ago
Chesterton's fence is satisfied here: it asks us to know why a rule was put into place so that we know we aren't missing something when we change it.
In this case we do know the reason why: aesthetics. The side effects are just greater now, so out the rule goes.
- rsj_hn 5y agoyeah, stacking boxes X levels high is not some deep thing that requires philosophers to gather 'round and debate Chesterton's fence for too long.
- mcguire 5y agoWhat is the evidence that the reason is aesthetics? Other posters have claimed that it is a fire department ordinance.
- tuatoru 5y agoWhat would the consequences of an earthquake be?
- SilasX 5y agoI think the broader (meta-?)point of Chesterton's fence is that our beliefs about the reason for the fence can still be wrong because we lost the tacit knowledge that produced and kept the fence there. So even if the rule shows up in some "city aesthetic code" where they wrote down "yep more than two is ugly", it may very well be satisfying some other desideratum that no one wrote down. That's not to say this rule really does have other reasons, but you can't stop at "yup that's what our records show". And indeed, some of them mentioned possible safety issues that arise with greater depths.