4 ms·

Chesterton's Fence always bothered me as an argument unto itself. Without providing (or attempting to a provide) a test for the destruction of the fence along w

by reedf1 1y ago

Chesterton's Fence always bothered me as an argument unto itself. Without providing (or attempting to a provide) a test for the destruction of the fence along with the argument, you are performing a bit of a rhetorical sleight of hand. When you do this you are shifting a potentially infinite burden of proof to the other side. It's Chesterton's fence not Chesterton's infinite fucking barrier.

privatelypublic 1y ago
Theres a reason it's called chesterson's fence. Not chesterson's law. It's a teaching prop that (imho) tells people to look at things as if they are wrong- rather than assume they're right. I've never seen somebody propose it as a formal debate concept- but rather a perspective in which to enter the debate.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- inanutshellus 1y ago
  > It's a teaching prop that (imho) tells people to look at things as if they are wrong- rather than assume they're right. I think you have that exactly backwards. Meaning... the "prop" would be to assume the fence-builder was right, not wrong, and you need to find the why before you can remove the obviously-dumb-thing-with-visible-no-purpose.
inanutshellus 1y ago
I'm sure you're beyond me here, but not quite following. He's not using the argument himself he's saying this is a situation in which people are removing "the fence" (replacing scissor-and-crayon time with tablets) without asking why it was there (establishing fine motor skills). It's clouded here because the article knows why the fence is there. Specifically - the fence (scissors, drawing, coloring) are tools we use in primary school to strengthen the childrens' hands and strengthen their fine motor skills. When they're older and attempting to write a long essay they don't get muscle cramps and break their concentration. Instead, they... simply write. We don't hand-write anymore but we also no longer have the
notatoad 1y ago
yeah, chesterton's fence has fully crossed the line from useful rhetorical tool to frequently mis-applied aphorism. don't remove the fence until you know why it was built is a simple, useful thought experiment. but it doesn't mean "don't remove the fence until you know about every single side effect that it could possibly have had since it was built, including things the builder could never have possibly imagined, and fully accounted for the consequences of each of those effects." if you sell the bull in chesterton's field, then you can tear down chesterton's fence. whether or not that lets the coyotes access the neighbour's chickens isn't part of the metaphor.
- LorenPechtel 1y ago
  If you built the fence to contain the bull then clearly you have removed the reason. It's not a Chesterton's Fence. Chesterton's Fence is about things that have no apparent purpose--because an awful lot of such things have a purpose that's not obvious.
  - lmm 1y ago
    That's the argument. In my experience most of the time the supposed purpose is a lucky coincidence or outright detrimental.
ksenzee 1y ago
The quote in the article seems to come from nowhere. It’s not in the post they link, and Google doesn’t find it. I went looking because I was uncomfortable with the way Chesterton’s Fence was being used here: it’s not supposed to be “that fence is important!” It’s supposed to be “that fence may be important, and until you know whether it is or not, leave it up.” I’ve probably written a lot of code that looks like a fence across a road, and I would hate to think everyone I ever worked with is leaving it up regardless of whether it’s still useful. In this case I happen to agree with the author’s premise: it seems clear that kids have a developmental need to interact with the world physically. But I’m not comfortable with a made-up blockquote that slightly twists the meaning of the original parable. ETA: I’m not accusing the author of the Medium article of fabricating their quote; their source may have changed in the interim. I’m just saying someone made up this story, there’s no apparent source for it, and it’s not a good representation of the principle it purportedly explains.
- inanutshellus 1y ago
  The author is claiming he knows why the fence was built, but now we've torn it down, which is not the normal way of using the CF idiom... but... doesn't mean it's not a reasonable usage.

by reedf1 1y ago

privatelypublic 1y ago

Theres a reason it's called chesterson's fence. Not chesterson's law. It's a teaching prop that (imho) tells people to look at things as if they are wrong- rather than assume they're right. I've never seen somebody propose it as a formal debate concept- but rather a perspective in which to enter the debate.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
inanutshellus 1y ago
> It's a teaching prop that (imho) tells people to look at things as if they are wrong- rather than assume they're right. I think you have that exactly backwards. Meaning... the "prop" would be to assume the fence-builder was right, not wrong, and you need to find the why before you can remove the obviously-dumb-thing-with-visible-no-purpose.

inanutshellus 1y ago

I'm sure you're beyond me here, but not quite following. He's not using the argument himself he's saying this is a situation in which people are removing "the fence" (replacing scissor-and-crayon time with tablets) without asking why it was there (establishing fine motor skills). It's clouded here because the article knows why the fence is there. Specifically - the fence (scissors, drawing, coloring) are tools we use in primary school to strengthen the childrens' hands and strengthen their fine motor skills. When they're older and attempting to write a long essay they don't get muscle cramps and break their concentration. Instead, they... simply write. We don't hand-write anymore but we also no longer have the

notatoad 1y ago

yeah, chesterton's fence has fully crossed the line from useful rhetorical tool to frequently mis-applied aphorism. don't remove the fence until you know why it was built is a simple, useful thought experiment. but it doesn't mean "don't remove the fence until you know about every single side effect that it could possibly have had since it was built, including things the builder could never have possibly imagined, and fully accounted for the consequences of each of those effects." if you sell the bull in chesterton's field, then you can tear down chesterton's fence. whether or not that lets the coyotes access the neighbour's chickens isn't part of the metaphor.

LorenPechtel 1y ago
If you built the fence to contain the bull then clearly you have removed the reason. It's not a Chesterton's Fence. Chesterton's Fence is about things that have no apparent purpose--because an awful lot of such things have a purpose that's not obvious.
- lmm 1y ago
  That's the argument. In my experience most of the time the supposed purpose is a lucky coincidence or outright detrimental.

ksenzee 1y ago

The quote in the article seems to come from nowhere. It’s not in the post they link, and Google doesn’t find it. I went looking because I was uncomfortable with the way Chesterton’s Fence was being used here: it’s not supposed to be “that fence is important!” It’s supposed to be “that fence may be important, and until you know whether it is or not, leave it up.” I’ve probably written a lot of code that looks like a fence across a road, and I would hate to think everyone I ever worked with is leaving it up regardless of whether it’s still useful. In this case I happen to agree with the author’s premise: it seems clear that kids have a developmental need to interact with the world physically. But I’m not comfortable with a made-up blockquote that slightly twists the meaning of the original parable. ETA: I’m not accusing the author of the Medium article of fabricating their quote; their source may have changed in the interim. I’m just saying someone made up this story, there’s no apparent source for it, and it’s not a good representation of the principle it purportedly explains.

inanutshellus 1y ago
The author is claiming he knows why the fence was built, but now we've torn it down, which is not the normal way of using the CF idiom... but... doesn't mean it's not a reasonable usage.