• Kellamity@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    13 hours ago

    I agree with your broader point about linguistics, but Chesterton’s fence has never sat right with me. Consider the inverse:

    This annoying and unnecessary fence is an inconvenience, but since nobody can remember what it’s for, we dare not remove it

    • CannedYeet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      Chesterton’s fence is a warning not to commit this logical error: I don’t know what this fence is for, therefore I know there is no reason for it.

      It doesn’t say never to remove it. It means you should try and figure out why it’s there and ask around before removing it.

    • 🔍🦘🛎@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      It’s just a logic exercise that advicates forethought when enacting change. The bigger problem is people taking parables and thought experiments as gospel, faithfully adhering to the text without considering it’s intent.

      More people need to read Asimov’s Foundation

    • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      12 hours ago

      I honestly don’t understand what’s insightful about it. It encourages a functional viewpoint that results in you inventing proposed uses for something that is a vestige of an inefficiency. Justifying something useless isn’t curiosity, it’s just masturbation. You should identify how a structure interacts with it’s current environment. There’s a reason functionalism is considered worthless in sociology.