this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2024
1103 points (98.7% liked)

Comic Strips

12739 readers
2797 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Zozano@lemy.lol 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

We're arguing about semantics, of course I'm going to argue about the textbook definition.

I'm not denying tradition has often had a deeper meaning behind it which has resulted in good outcomes.

All I've been saying this entire time is that as far as REASONS go, tradition IS the least valid.

If you choose to conflate "good reason" with "good outcome", go argue with a dictionary.

[–] kopasz7@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Typical predictionist world view. "Trying to lecture birds how to fly, because we have the Navier-Stokes equations."

This is the same logical error that collapses the economy (eg. in 2008). Trying to predict the world, trying our damnedest to shoehorn it into a reductionist model. And then we act surprised, "nobody could have seen that coming", when a black swan event happens. 99% days were 'following' the rule, one day it crashed erasing all preceding. So how correct is a prediction like that, not 99% in my view. (In face of unpredictability, risk reduction and resiliency is the solution, not more prediction.)

If we want to engage in mental exercises that have no relation to the real world, then sure let's turn to the textbook. Just make sure you don't forget to look up when crossing the road, traffic rules can't overwrite physical ones. In the same vein as outcomes are real, reasons are made up.

(Just as you can find an infinite number of mathematical functions that fit a set of points. You can create an unlimited supply of models that explain an event, yet fail when a new data point is collected. Is the real world at fault then or the model?)

[–] Zozano@lemy.lol 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You're literally too stupid to argue with, I'm not wasting my time even reading this shit.