3 ms·
>> the difference between answers and explanation. This is quite a profound point, and worth reading the article for
by KineticLensman 3y ago
>> the difference between answers and explanation.
This is quite a profound point, and worth reading the article for
- isp 3y agoAbsolutely - the specific examples of "Why Vim Uses hjkl" and "Why JavaScript months start from 0" were very interesting in themselves. But the profound point was the generalisation: > We can always look further, peeling back more and more layers of the history. > But two layers is enough for this essay. With two layers, we can see a common pattern in studying history, the difference between answers and explanation. When asked why something is the way it is, most people will give a post-hoc rationalization. They’ll see the present and come up with reasons why it’s “better” for things to be that way. If you look a little into the past, you often see that “things are this way because they were this way”. And if you look deeper, you see the forces that lead to things becoming that way. > ... But it’s all worth the effort. Digging into the second layer teaches us much more about the context and reasons for why things are the way they are. And I can’t deny the puzzle aspect of it all, the joy in solving a mystery. Lost knowledge found again.
- B1FF_PSUVM 3y agoI'd like to believe that one case of that - difference between answers and explanation - is why you have the "flat earth" thing out there: they're trying to rile up people who were just taught the right answer. But, nah, probably just trying to rile up people in general, sort of a TV sitcom ersatz.