4 ms·
This is a literary device. The article continues to explain why this isn’t a simple problem, and it’s clear from the conclusion that the author understands the
by evan_a_a 8mo ago
This is a literary device. The article continues to explain why this isn’t a simple problem, and it’s clear from the conclusion that the author understands the complexity.
>But it’s good to be reminded that we know a lot less about the world than we think. Much of our thinking about the world runs on a statistical edifice of extraordinary complexity, in which raw numbers—like population counts, but also many others—are only the most basic inputs. Thinking about the actual construction of these numbers is important, because it encourages us to have a healthy degree of epistemic humility about the world: we really know much less than we think.
- anal_reactor 8mo agoI guess this is why reading things other than technical documentation remains important.
- quietbritishjim 8mo agoOr it's a reason why literary devices should only be employed when they aren't distractingly wrong.
- rustystump 8mo agoI guess dune should be totally different given how distractingly wrong it is…
- tjwebbnorfolk 8mo agoor to not jump to conclusions from reading a single sentence of a multi page article
- vladms 8mo agoI tried to check a list of literary devices (Wikipedia) and couldn't exactly map to a specific category - would be interesting to know if there such a category. The problem I have with this literary device is that I think it works if most / many questions would fit it then he would go to disapprove it. Using it, for me, kind of indirectly reinforces the idea that "there are many simple answers". Which I came to loathe as it is pushed again and again due to social media. Everything is "clear", "simple", "everybody knows better", "everybody did their research". How did this literal device make you feel? Interested? Curious? Bored? When I read it my initial instinct was "no, it's definitely not simple, so if that's what are you going to explain me, I will not bother".
- ajkjk 8mo agoThe list of literary devices on Wikipedia is a tiny subset of the list of literary devices in reality. Although in this case it is a well-documented one: it's just a rhetorical question. anyway it is just a writing style. if you don't like it, fine. If you can't parse it, well, now you can.
- dugidugout 8mo agoI didn't feel much at all. It's simply a rhetorical question which sets up the explicit claim being made in the title of the article. The structure is quite clear if you account for the entire text which I'm sure the author intended. Do you mean to assert that reasoning through the Socratic tradition is something to loathe and push against? In other words, you are leaning on a lot of ancillary personal concerns which I don't believe the author earned.
- PlatoIsADisease 8mo agoAs someone who reads epistemology for fun. Its so much worse than you know. Everything is basically a theory only judged on predictive capabilities. Even the idea that Earth is not at the center of the solar system is a judgement call of what we define as the solar system and center. The math is simpler sure, but its arbitrary how we define our systems.
- lotsofpulp 8mo agoYou lost me with your example. What could the word center mean if the thing that all the other things orbit around in the solar system is not referred to as being in the center?
- sdwr 8mo agoDepends on how many epicycles you add!
- PlatoIsADisease 8mo agoThey orbit the earth in a different shape that is more complex than an ellipse. For further reading, I like Early Wittgenstein, but warning, he is a meme for a reason, you will only understand 10%... Imagine we have a table with black and white splotches. We could use a square fishnet with a fine enough resolution to accurately describe it. But why use a square fishnet? Why not use hexagons? They both can accurately describe it with a fine enough resolution. All of science is built on this first step of choosing (squares or hexagons). Maybe something easier than Wittgenstein, there is Waltz Theory of International Politics, specifically chapter 1. But that is more practical/applied than metaphysical. I find this a difficult topic to recommend a wikipedia article, as they are too specific to each type of knowledge and don't explain the general topic. Even the general topic gets a bit lost in the weeds. Maybe Karl Popper too.
- Dylan16807 8mo ago> They orbit the earth in a different shape that is more complex than an ellipse. But they don't. We know they don't. Not unless you use a weird definition of orbit that is very different from the one lotsofpulp was using. And if you do that you're not countering their argument, you're misconstruing it.