Never change anything because society is too difficult to actually understand was the essence of his argument lol. He was a reactionary christain opposed to social change and it’s a bad argument.
You should be able to change things without assuming that everything which seems silly has some unknown and important purpose. You should manage change by assessing risks and hazards which are known and planning appropriately.
It’s not a bad argument to try to understand an existing system before changing it.
I’ve seen a lot of “why is this like this? I’m changing it” blow up in software. The clearest memory was not realizing that user names could be null, even though that looked impossible by tracing the registration route. Turns out there was another, stupider, way of registering.
It’s especially a good argument when the person evaluating the system has no domain knowledge or expertise.
In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”
Is where it comes from, in a book describing why he’s a Catholic.
But the reality of the world, especially social institutions is not like this. There is a cunning sleight of hand here, a fence only gets built because someone has a reason to build a fence. Many things in life are not built: they arise spontaneously or emerge from chaos through more complex forms of interaction.
If we switch the argument to being about diverting a watercourse, or regrading land, it suddenly falls apart because it becomes clear that these things do not exist for intelligent reasons.
I don’t think it’s a bad idea to try and understand the world or to mitigate risks when making changes. I think chesterton’s fence is a shite argument because it implies that everything which exists has a planned purpose and favours the status quo which may be intolerable.
If we switch the argument to being about diverting a watercourse, or regrading land, it suddenly falls apart because it becomes clear that these things do not exist for intelligent reasons.
This is not a compelling analogy. Many things in nature may not exist for an intelligent reason, but their presence matters in ways that may not be obvious. Diverting a waterway may cause tremendous damage to the ecosystem and other downstream (pun intended) things. That is an excellent example of why you should understand the current system before attempting to change it.
I don’t think it’s a bad idea to try and understand the world or to mitigate risks when making changes. I think chesterton’s fence is a shite argument because it implies that everything which exists has a planned purpose and favours the status quo which may be intoler
I don’t think the implied plan purpose is necessary for the argument to make sense. The point of the story is it’s not always clear what things are load bearing, nor what loads they bear.
If the chesteron origin is distracting to you, let’s discard it. I think we agree that changing a complex system without attempting to understand it first is foolish.
No, I am trying to make a point here. Everyone knows decisions can have consequences and that change should be managed. Chesterton’s fence is not “try not to fuck up in ignorance” it is a specific argument made by GK Chesterton and pushed by cryptofascists in the tech industry via the “rationalist” movement to try and equivocate:
Doing stuff recklessly is bad, but so is not doing stuff out of fear. We should have robust ways of making decisions
and Chesterton’s argument
Every tradition and social structure has some important reasoning behind it, and if you want to get rid of some prohibition or institution because you think it’s outdated, useless, or obstructing progress then that is a demonstration of your lack of qualification to make such a change.
Fine. Consider your point made. I’ll use some other metaphor or allusion to express “don’t willy-nilly change systems you don’t understand”. Many people just do that, out of ignorance, stupidity, or hubris. I’ve seen a lot of software people delete “useless” code that caused problems later.
Every tradition and social structure has some important reasoning behind it, and if you want to get rid of some prohibition or institution because you think it’s outdated, useless, or obstructing progress then that is a demonstration of your lack of qualification to make such a change.
Where did you get this impression from? If you think it’s outdated, useless, or obstructing progress that’s understanding. Seeing that it’s useless is different from not seeing its use. There is literally a quote about that in the same chapter.
If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, or that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served.
If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve
What purpose is patriarchy supposed to serve? What about homophobia? What about racism? How did they arise?
What purpose does excluding women from voting serve? What about anti abortion laws?
These requirements are set as to be impossible because Chesterton was a horrible person in favour of maintaining a racist and patriarchal Catholic society.
seriously try and answer those questions without speculation.
These requirements are set as to be impossible because Chesterton was a horrible person in favour of maintaining a racist and patriarchal Catholic society. seriously try and answer those questions without speculation.
He literally holds up to his own standards right afterwards: “It is now necessary to recite these truisms; for only by doing so can we begin to get a glimpse of that reason for the existence of the family, which I began this essay by demanding.”
He doesn’t say you can’t speculate: “People ought to decide in a philosophical fashion whether they desire the traditional social order or not; or if there is any particular alternative to be desired”. It would be weird if he did considering that this chapter brings up speculation on practical ramifications of social reform rather than historical context.
He wasn’t exactly in favor of the status quo either (in his case it would be more from a reactionary perspective): “The family, especially in the modern state, stands in need of considerable correction and reconstruction; most things do in the modern state.”
What purpose is patriarchy supposed to serve? What about homophobia? What about racism? How did they arise? What purpose does excluding women from voting serve? What about anti abortion laws?
All of those things are very well studied now from all lenses and perspectives, I don’t think anyone reasonable will say that there is no understanding on these topics. Certainly not in a philosophical fashion.
Absolutely, but then the fence should have a clear marking, otherwise it’s a booby trap and the idiot that placed it without documentation is just as much at fault as the idiot that removed it without proper analysis.
I’m reminded of that meme of the cartoon girl going “this sign won’t stop me because I can’t read”
I’ve had coworkers that changed some code, then just deleted the tests that started failing. Then they get annoyed their PR is blocked by more attentive coworkers.
One should keep Chesterton’s Fence in mind.
Idiots like Musk will see a system they don’t understand and tear it down, and then people die.
Never change anything because society is too difficult to actually understand was the essence of his argument lol. He was a reactionary christain opposed to social change and it’s a bad argument.
You should be able to change things without assuming that everything which seems silly has some unknown and important purpose. You should manage change by assessing risks and hazards which are known and planning appropriately.
It’s not a bad argument to try to understand an existing system before changing it.
I’ve seen a lot of “why is this like this? I’m changing it” blow up in software. The clearest memory was not realizing that user names could be null, even though that looked impossible by tracing the registration route. Turns out there was another, stupider, way of registering.
It’s especially a good argument when the person evaluating the system has no domain knowledge or expertise.
Is where it comes from, in a book describing why he’s a Catholic.
But the reality of the world, especially social institutions is not like this. There is a cunning sleight of hand here, a fence only gets built because someone has a reason to build a fence. Many things in life are not built: they arise spontaneously or emerge from chaos through more complex forms of interaction.
If we switch the argument to being about diverting a watercourse, or regrading land, it suddenly falls apart because it becomes clear that these things do not exist for intelligent reasons.
I don’t think it’s a bad idea to try and understand the world or to mitigate risks when making changes. I think chesterton’s fence is a shite argument because it implies that everything which exists has a planned purpose and favours the status quo which may be intolerable.
This is not a compelling analogy. Many things in nature may not exist for an intelligent reason, but their presence matters in ways that may not be obvious. Diverting a waterway may cause tremendous damage to the ecosystem and other downstream (pun intended) things. That is an excellent example of why you should understand the current system before attempting to change it.
I don’t think the implied plan purpose is necessary for the argument to make sense. The point of the story is it’s not always clear what things are load bearing, nor what loads they bear.
If the chesteron origin is distracting to you, let’s discard it. I think we agree that changing a complex system without attempting to understand it first is foolish.
No, I am trying to make a point here. Everyone knows decisions can have consequences and that change should be managed. Chesterton’s fence is not “try not to fuck up in ignorance” it is a specific argument made by GK Chesterton and pushed by cryptofascists in the tech industry via the “rationalist” movement to try and equivocate:
and Chesterton’s argument
Fine. Consider your point made. I’ll use some other metaphor or allusion to express “don’t willy-nilly change systems you don’t understand”. Many people just do that, out of ignorance, stupidity, or hubris. I’ve seen a lot of software people delete “useless” code that caused problems later.
Where did you get this impression from? If you think it’s outdated, useless, or obstructing progress that’s understanding. Seeing that it’s useless is different from not seeing its use. There is literally a quote about that in the same chapter.
What purpose is patriarchy supposed to serve? What about homophobia? What about racism? How did they arise?
What purpose does excluding women from voting serve? What about anti abortion laws?
These requirements are set as to be impossible because Chesterton was a horrible person in favour of maintaining a racist and patriarchal Catholic society.
seriously try and answer those questions without speculation.
He literally holds up to his own standards right afterwards: “It is now necessary to recite these truisms; for only by doing so can we begin to get a glimpse of that reason for the existence of the family, which I began this essay by demanding.”
He doesn’t say you can’t speculate: “People ought to decide in a philosophical fashion whether they desire the traditional social order or not; or if there is any particular alternative to be desired”. It would be weird if he did considering that this chapter brings up speculation on practical ramifications of social reform rather than historical context.
He wasn’t exactly in favor of the status quo either (in his case it would be more from a reactionary perspective): “The family, especially in the modern state, stands in need of considerable correction and reconstruction; most things do in the modern state.”
All of those things are very well studied now from all lenses and perspectives, I don’t think anyone reasonable will say that there is no understanding on these topics. Certainly not in a philosophical fashion.
If Elon Musk was someone who asked why and accepted answers he wouldn’t have torn it down. So this post does not reference him.
Absolutely, but then the fence should have a clear marking, otherwise it’s a booby trap and the idiot that placed it without documentation is just as much at fault as the idiot that removed it without proper analysis.
I’m reminded of that meme of the cartoon girl going “this sign won’t stop me because I can’t read”
I’ve had coworkers that changed some code, then just deleted the tests that started failing. Then they get annoyed their PR is blocked by more attentive coworkers.