= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Konkvistador comments on Open thread for December 17-23, 2013 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (301)
Kinda. I actually read it as an argument for passivity unless you know what you're doing.
Not knowing the reason for something is a "reason to keep it" -- well, it's a reason to not do anything. If that something gets destroyed by, say, a force of nature, would Chesterton's Fence tell you to rebuild it? No, I don' think so.
The Chesteron's Fence is primarily a warning against hubris, against pretending to contain all the reasons of the world in your head. It is, basically, an entreaty to consider unknown unknowns, especially if you have evidence of their workings in front of you.
Force of nature is misleading in the context of where it is likely to be applied. No social norms or institutions subsist without maintenance. But let me keep it and tweak it a bit, if you could easily prevent the force of nature destroying the fence, would you say the argument encourages you to do so?