3 ms·
> "to show that it is possible for large groups of people to hold false beliefs" The claim from the article is not about their beliefs, it is about their activ
by jodrellblank 3y ago
> "to show that it is possible for large groups of people to hold false beliefs"
The claim from the article is not about their beliefs, it is about their activity. If a million people say that one can live many different lifestyles from a tent but those people actually live in suburban houses, they can potentially all be wrong. If a million people actually do live in tents while living many different lifestyles, QED, it is demonstrated - they aren't holding false beliefs, full stop. It's not a belief anymore, it's a fact. The fact that they are doing it shows it can be done at all, and the large numbers show it's not an extreme claim that only one or two weirdo obsessives could contort themselves enough to use, it's general enough for millions to do over many lifestyles.
> "Everyone is doing it" is absolutely no indication that "it" is a good idea.
It is too; "When in Rome" is advice because whatever the Romans are doing, it isn't killing them or getting them into fights or mugged or annoying someone powerful. If you don't have any reason to do otherwise, eating what the Romans eat, drinking what they drink, behaving how they behave, is a far far better starting point than almost any other. As a guest in someone's house, trying behave how the homeowners behave is a good idea; 90+% of starting points will be worse, most things you could try to eat will make you ill or kill you, most of the world's thousands of programming languages are toys or niche domain systems or wildly outdated or proprietary and gone out of business. The ones millions of people use? Pretty good idea to use one of those, unless you have very good reasons for doing otherwise.
- lisper 3y ago> The claim from the article is not about their beliefs, it is about their activity. No, the claim is about a property of a programming language. The activity is cited as evidence in support of the claim of the fitness of C++ as a general-purpose programming language. The problem with C++ is that it is a legacy language, and so the fact that a zillion people use it today might be because it's a good language, but it might also be because it has so much institutional inertia behind it that this is enough to override the fact that it's a totally shit language. The Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years, but that doesn't necessarily mean that its factual claims have any merit. The Church's success might be because it is in communion with the truth, or it might be because it has so much institutional and societal inertia that it keeps chugging right along despite having no actual merit. The success of the Church might also be due to people subscribing to the logical fallacy that because a lot of people subscribe to it that it must have some merit, which after a while becomes a self-sustaining cycle. (Note that a self-sustaining cycle is different from a self-fulfilling prophecy because the latter actually becomes true if enough people subscribe to it.)