Comment by Phiwise_ | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Phiwise_ | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>At surface level, the adage emphasizes the consistency that arises when information comes from a single source and points out the potential pitfalls of having too much conflicting information. However, the underlying message is to question the apparent certainty of anyone who only has one source of information. The man with one watch has no way to identify error or uncertainty.

This ambiguity between endorsing one or two is why I kind of prefer the version of this law Fred Brooks cited:

>An ancient adage warns, "Never go to sea with two chronometers; take one or three." The same thing clearly applies to prose and formal definitions. If one has both, one must be the standard, and the other must be a derivative description, clearly labeled as such. Either can be the primary standard. Algol 68 has a formal definition as standard and a prose definition as descriptive. PL/I has the prose as standard and the formal description as derivative. System/360 also has prose as standard with a derived formal description.

In this context, the reader can be much more trusted to see that one chrono beats out two only by being cheaper (which might be worth it for short voyages), and one description beats out two only by being unambiguously the standard (which might be worth it for small or exploratory projects).

Now do the same with models of reality, but extending into the realm where millions of variables are involved, many of them downstream from consciousness, and culture (cultural norms of "logic", etc). To handle this one will need a lot more than a few simple methods. Alternatively, faith in almost any ideology (religion & science are most powerful) can make things appear to line up perfectly. If you don't believe me, just listen to how people talk, there is a near infinite supply of evidence, and more every day.

Jesse, what the hell are you talking about?

>cultural norms of "logic", etc

Your brain on logical relativism, I guess.

When one is not able to understand what another says, assuming the other person is necessarily incorrect/silly may not be optimal gameplay (depending upon what variable(s)[1] one is optimizing for of course, or if one never even thought about that aspect of it in the first place).

Less snarkily: the 1/2/3 watches example is a single, ~deterministic, ~knowable data point; it is roughly the simplest type of problem space you can deal with, and even here there is uncertainty. Now consider a much more complex problem space, reality (better known as "the reality"), and things get much worse. But paradoxically, with all the added complexity, "correct" answers often become simpler, not more difficult. (Here I am referring to the conversations you may find on social media (or anywhere) about complex matters such as war.)

[1] Having fun, fitting in, just joking, etc.

>Now consider a much more complex problem space

Why? It's neither the subject at hand nor have you expressed it meaningfully. I dismissed you because I'm optimizing for productive concrete discussion in the face of your social gaming, and you argued against me on the same grounds only because you lack the self-awareness to see that. Assuming conclusively someone is necessarily incorrect only because they were snarky when they ignored you is not an optimum strategy.

> Why?

Can be good practice to avoid making the classic errors you just made.

Sorry if it sounded like an order, I meant it more as a suggestion.

What classic errors?

Thinking that how it seems is necessarily how it is. A more sophisticated term is Naive Realism.

And where did I make that error?

In the text of your comment. You treat your interpretation and perception of what is going on as being equal(!) to what is going on, despite I'm quite confident possessing knowledge of how unreliable perception is, according to both science and common experience.

Why do You People do this? Why do you not behave more logically?

>You said the thing I disagree with in the place where you say things

This conversation is like pulling teeth. Fix this or I'm done wasting my time.

You asked a question, I answered it.

Are you engaging in rhetoric, or are you actually serious?

Where is that quote from by the way?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com