4 ms·

I just adore the hubris on full display here to say what one of the world's best computer science educators has to say is irrelevant.

airstrike 4y ago
I think the parent's point is that even highly inspired wisdom can be irrelevant if applied to all situations More like "it doesn't apply" than "it's inherently invaluable" Also your comment is technically an appeal to authority
antegamisou 4y ago
That's the most humble HNer for you btw.
anon7725 4y ago
It is indeed not particularly relevant to the emergence of AGI and its effect on our work.
coldtea 4y ago
First, this is an argument by authority. One of the "world's best computer science educators" can still say all kinds of wrong stuff. Especially someone as opinionated as Dijkstra, with many controversial opinions other world leading computer science educators disagree with. Second, relevance and applicability is depending on context. On the context of this discussion, about practical programming in the trenches, what Dijkstra said is irrelevant. For starters, he was talking about computer science. Programmers in the trenches (what the thread is discussing) don't do computer science. They merely apply stuff developed by computer scientists (but also by non-scientific practioners in the field), in informal (and often haphazard) manner, to solve business problems (often the same problems again and again, which is something totally beneath a scientist). So, yes, something Dijkstra had said can still be wrong, regardless of his achievements. And it can also far more easily be irrelevant, as this just needs his saying to be unrelated to the discussion.
- lolinder 4y ago
  We're not talking about Dijkstra, OP is paraphrasing Harold Abelson. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Abelson https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Abelson
- dimitrios1 4y ago
  This is an argument of "challenging those who have the hubris to think Harold's statement is irrelevant to stop thinking small minded", if I were to call it anything. Additionally, even if I concede it is an argument solely on authority, just because an argument contains a fallacious point doesn't make it untrue, otherwise that would be the fallacy fallacy.
  - coldtea 4y ago
    >Additionally, even if I concede it is an argument solely on authority, just because an argument contains a fallacious point doesn't make it untrue Notice how you also conveniently sidestepped my arguments about why it's also untrue (on top of containing a falacious point).
dgacmu 4y ago
As a computer science educator, it's worth remembering that Dijkstra was incredibly full of himself and his specific formal view of the field. There are large parts of computer science that have nothing to do with the machine and there are other parts that do. There's no single cut and dried answer here, we're a pretty diverse field that spans everything from mathematics to engineering to a touch of art and human factors.
- lolinder 4y ago
  What you say about Dijkstra is true, but we're not actually talking about a Dijkstra quote here, we're talking about Harold Abelson. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Abelson https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Abelson
  - dgacmu 4y ago
    I think we all started replying to a sibling comment that quoted from Dijkstra and we got it threaded wrong. "Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes” - Edsger Dijkstra
Jensson 4y ago
"Science advances one funeral at a time" - Max Planck Are you saying Max Planck is wrong here? There is plenty of evidence that he was right, that statements made by famous scientists holds fields back because they were reductive or hurting different perspectives. Putting their words at an altar is holding us back.

airstrike 4y ago

I think the parent's point is that even highly inspired wisdom can be irrelevant if applied to all situations More like "it doesn't apply" than "it's inherently invaluable" Also your comment is technically an appeal to authority

antegamisou 4y ago

That's the most humble HNer for you btw.

anon7725 4y ago

It is indeed not particularly relevant to the emergence of AGI and its effect on our work.

coldtea 4y ago

First, this is an argument by authority. One of the "world's best computer science educators" can still say all kinds of wrong stuff. Especially someone as opinionated as Dijkstra, with many controversial opinions other world leading computer science educators disagree with. Second, relevance and applicability is depending on context. On the context of this discussion, about practical programming in the trenches, what Dijkstra said is irrelevant. For starters, he was talking about computer science. Programmers in the trenches (what the thread is discussing) don't do computer science. They merely apply stuff developed by computer scientists (but also by non-scientific practioners in the field), in informal (and often haphazard) manner, to solve business problems (often the same problems again and again, which is something totally beneath a scientist). So, yes, something Dijkstra had said can still be wrong, regardless of his achievements. And it can also far more easily be irrelevant, as this just needs his saying to be unrelated to the discussion.

lolinder 4y ago
We're not talking about Dijkstra, OP is paraphrasing Harold Abelson. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Abelson https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Abelson
dimitrios1 4y ago
This is an argument of "challenging those who have the hubris to think Harold's statement is irrelevant to stop thinking small minded", if I were to call it anything. Additionally, even if I concede it is an argument solely on authority, just because an argument contains a fallacious point doesn't make it untrue, otherwise that would be the fallacy fallacy.
- coldtea 4y ago
  >Additionally, even if I concede it is an argument solely on authority, just because an argument contains a fallacious point doesn't make it untrue Notice how you also conveniently sidestepped my arguments about why it's also untrue (on top of containing a falacious point).

dgacmu 4y ago

As a computer science educator, it's worth remembering that Dijkstra was incredibly full of himself and his specific formal view of the field. There are large parts of computer science that have nothing to do with the machine and there are other parts that do. There's no single cut and dried answer here, we're a pretty diverse field that spans everything from mathematics to engineering to a touch of art and human factors.

lolinder 4y ago
What you say about Dijkstra is true, but we're not actually talking about a Dijkstra quote here, we're talking about Harold Abelson. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Abelson https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Abelson
- dgacmu 4y ago
  I think we all started replying to a sibling comment that quoted from Dijkstra and we got it threaded wrong. "Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes” - Edsger Dijkstra

Jensson 4y ago

"Science advances one funeral at a time" - Max Planck Are you saying Max Planck is wrong here? There is plenty of evidence that he was right, that statements made by famous scientists holds fields back because they were reductive or hurting different perspectives. Putting their words at an altar is holding us back.