5 ms·

He underrates the power of principle. "Mass is awesome. What if every object in the Universe had mass?" "Liberty is awesome. What if there should be no such t

by wissler 14y ago

He underrates the power of principle. "Mass is awesome. What if every object in the Universe had mass?" "Liberty is awesome. What if there should be no such thing as slavery and every human being should be free?" If you pick the wrong principle and take it to an extreme, then yes, it'll lead to undesirable results, but that means you should throw bad principles out, not all principles.

lambda 14y ago
Huh? He was advocating for finding a principle and taking it to the extreme. He wasn't discouraging it. Yes, he said that sometimes it won't work; but the whole point of the article is that you can discover and learn new things when you try taking one principle to its logical conclusion. Where did you get the idea that he was arguing against that?
- wissler 14y ago
  Yes, he said to try new principles, he also said not to expect them to really work, which undercuts the motivation for finding really difficult to discern principles.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > he also said not to expect them to really work, which undercuts the motivation for finding really difficult to discern principles. That would be an argument against science, which labors under the same constraint (i.e. with rare exception, things don't work), but as it turns out it really isn't an argument against science at all, because the rare "thing that works" tends to change the world.
    - wissler 14y ago
      "That would be an argument against science" No. Great science is done by people who are more like Newton and Tesla, not people like you and Edison.
      - lutusp 14y ago
        > Great science is done by people who are more like Newton and Tesla, not people like you and Edison. Apart from the fact the "great science" isn't the topic of discussion, on the contrary: in terms of maximum effect on the human race, the "greatest" science is the man of the street who can't be bamboozled by an idea that has no supporting evidence.
        wissler 14y ago
        "in terms of maximum effect on the human race, the "greatest" science is the man of the street who can't be bamboozled by an idea that has no supporting evidence." That's a rather grandiose claim. Where's your supporting evidence?
        lutusp 14y ago
        > Where's your supporting evidence? Modern times is my evidence. The reason the Church didn't burn Galileo at the stake in 1633, as they did Bruno in 1600, is, not because they didn't want to, but because public awareness of science, of the value of comparing ideas to reality, had changed enough in that interval to make it a practical impossibility. And that was just 33 years. The single most important manifestation of science is the general increase in everyday scientific reasoning, not the specialized form of science practiced by professionals, as important as the latter surely is. Professional, high-level science gives us vaccines and modern medicine, certainly very valuable. Everyday science gives us the notion that an unfamiliar idea or claim must be accompanied by evidence. The second trumps the first.
        wissler 14y ago
        Sure, the mob refraining from killing and attacking scientists is good. But the credit still goes to Galileo for his insight, not the common man for refraining from abusing Galileo. IOW, who you have decided to credit is morally perverse.
        14y ago
tjr 14y ago
I read it more like, to use your examples: "Mass is awesome. What if every object in the Universe had mass [and did not have liberty, only mass]?" "Liberty is awesome. What if there should be no such thing as slavery and every human being should be free [and had no mass, only liberty]?" Pure mass without liberty is wrong. Pure liberty without mass is nonsensical.
- gerts 14y ago
  > Pure liberty without mass is nonsensical. That's a photon.
jerf 14y ago
I have no idea what you are trying to say. You take a point that is explicitly written about programming languages, then I can make out that you think you're saying something by applying it to... physics? and then political philosophy? What? This is not a sensible line of thought on any level I can find, not metaphorically or literally. The post is about trying out programming languages, not slavery.
- nickbarone 14y ago
  The post may be about programming over politics, but the post is essentially recommended exploring the consequences of extremes, and that operation is valuable in (heh - taking it to the extreme!) all places. For example: 1984 - extremes of medication, Player Piano - extremes of automation. You can also notice this technique in a debate, someone takes the emotional stakes to an extreme - while it's usually used as an attempt to convince you, it's actually a useful practice because it can magnify otherwise overlooked elements of the positions, opinions, and principles.
  - derleth 14y ago
    > 1984 - extremes of medication The only medication I remember from Nineteen Eighty-Four was Liberty Gin. I think you're thinking of Brave New World with soma.
    - nickbarone 14y ago
      Ah! I am, sorry, and thanks.

by wissler 14y ago

lambda 14y ago

Huh? He was advocating for finding a principle and taking it to the extreme. He wasn't discouraging it. Yes, he said that sometimes it won't work; but the whole point of the article is that you can discover and learn new things when you try taking one principle to its logical conclusion. Where did you get the idea that he was arguing against that?

wissler 14y ago
Yes, he said to try new principles, he also said not to expect them to really work, which undercuts the motivation for finding really difficult to discern principles.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > he also said not to expect them to really work, which undercuts the motivation for finding really difficult to discern principles. That would be an argument against science, which labors under the same constraint (i.e. with rare exception, things don't work), but as it turns out it really isn't an argument against science at all, because the rare "thing that works" tends to change the world.
  - wissler 14y ago
    "That would be an argument against science" No. Great science is done by people who are more like Newton and Tesla, not people like you and Edison.
    - lutusp 14y ago
      > Great science is done by people who are more like Newton and Tesla, not people like you and Edison. Apart from the fact the "great science" isn't the topic of discussion, on the contrary: in terms of maximum effect on the human race, the "greatest" science is the man of the street who can't be bamboozled by an idea that has no supporting evidence.
      - wissler 14y ago
        "in terms of maximum effect on the human race, the "greatest" science is the man of the street who can't be bamboozled by an idea that has no supporting evidence." That's a rather grandiose claim. Where's your supporting evidence?
        lutusp 14y ago
        > Where's your supporting evidence? Modern times is my evidence. The reason the Church didn't burn Galileo at the stake in 1633, as they did Bruno in 1600, is, not because they didn't want to, but because public awareness of science, of the value of comparing ideas to reality, had changed enough in that interval to make it a practical impossibility. And that was just 33 years. The single most important manifestation of science is the general increase in everyday scientific reasoning, not the specialized form of science practiced by professionals, as important as the latter surely is. Professional, high-level science gives us vaccines and modern medicine, certainly very valuable. Everyday science gives us the notion that an unfamiliar idea or claim must be accompanied by evidence. The second trumps the first.
        wissler 14y ago
        Sure, the mob refraining from killing and attacking scientists is good. But the credit still goes to Galileo for his insight, not the common man for refraining from abusing Galileo. IOW, who you have decided to credit is morally perverse.
        14y ago

tjr 14y ago

I read it more like, to use your examples: "Mass is awesome. What if every object in the Universe had mass [and did not have liberty, only mass]?" "Liberty is awesome. What if there should be no such thing as slavery and every human being should be free [and had no mass, only liberty]?" Pure mass without liberty is wrong. Pure liberty without mass is nonsensical.

gerts 14y ago
> Pure liberty without mass is nonsensical. That's a photon.

jerf 14y ago

I have no idea what you are trying to say. You take a point that is explicitly written about programming languages, then I can make out that you think you're saying something by applying it to... physics? and then political philosophy? What? This is not a sensible line of thought on any level I can find, not metaphorically or literally. The post is about trying out programming languages, not slavery.

nickbarone 14y ago
The post may be about programming over politics, but the post is essentially recommended exploring the consequences of extremes, and that operation is valuable in (heh - taking it to the extreme!) all places. For example: 1984 - extremes of medication, Player Piano - extremes of automation. You can also notice this technique in a debate, someone takes the emotional stakes to an extreme - while it's usually used as an attempt to convince you, it's actually a useful practice because it can magnify otherwise overlooked elements of the positions, opinions, and principles.
- derleth 14y ago
  > 1984 - extremes of medication The only medication I remember from Nineteen Eighty-Four was Liberty Gin. I think you're thinking of Brave New World with soma.
  - nickbarone 14y ago
    Ah! I am, sorry, and thanks.