Beware of shorthand: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The world is an intractable, complicated place. Part of the human condition is to simplify, narratise, overlay an organising {{t|metaphor}} that makes sense of the chaos. | {{a|maxim|}}The world is an intractable, complicated place. Part of the human condition is to simplify, narratise, [[It’s okay to generalise|generalise]]: to overlay an organising {{t|metaphor}} that makes sense of the chaos. | ||
So we are drawn to signs that stand for more complicated underlying realities. The laws of physics are such a simplification. They don’t lie<ref>Though try telling that to {{author|Nancy Cartwright}}, author of {{br|How the Laws of Physics Lie}}.</ref>, so much as operate as a simple [[heuristic]]. We rely on Newton’s work to save us the bother of going through that inductive discovery | So we are drawn to signs that stand for more complicated underlying realities. The laws of physics are such a simplification. They don’t lie<ref>Though try telling that to {{author|Nancy Cartwright}}, author of {{br|How the Laws of Physics Lie}}.</ref>, so much as operate as a simple [[heuristic]]. We rely on Newton’s work to save us the bother of going through that inductive discovery every day. | ||
Hence our heuristics become our {{t|metaphor}}s, and our {{t|metaphor}}s coalesce to form an invisible superstructure, on which we hang the imaginative drapes of our own personal reality. | Hence our heuristics become our {{t|metaphor}}s, and our {{t|metaphor}}s coalesce to form an invisible superstructure, on which we hang the imaginative drapes of our own personal reality. | ||
We do this in all walks of life. We rate, we grade, we categorise, we risk manage by reference to a simplified narrative structure. But we must understand the complicated workings, and assumptions, and tolerances, of our models | We do this in all walks of life. We rate, we grade, we categorise, we risk-manage by reference to a simplified narrative structure. But we must understand the complicated workings, and assumptions, and tolerances, of our models. | ||
[[It’s okay to generalise]]. We can’t help it. But be aware of you are doing it. [[Heuristics]] may fail. | |||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[Policy]] as dangerous inflexibility at the wild frontier | |||
*[[It’s okay to generalise]] | |||
*[[Heuristics]] | |||
{{c|Maxim}} | {{c|Maxim}} | ||
Latest revision as of 00:19, 5 January 2020
|
|
The world is an intractable, complicated place. Part of the human condition is to simplify, narratise, generalise: to overlay an organising metaphor that makes sense of the chaos.
So we are drawn to signs that stand for more complicated underlying realities. The laws of physics are such a simplification. They don’t lie[1], so much as operate as a simple heuristic. We rely on Newton’s work to save us the bother of going through that inductive discovery every day.
Hence our heuristics become our metaphors, and our metaphors coalesce to form an invisible superstructure, on which we hang the imaginative drapes of our own personal reality.
We do this in all walks of life. We rate, we grade, we categorise, we risk-manage by reference to a simplified narrative structure. But we must understand the complicated workings, and assumptions, and tolerances, of our models.
It’s okay to generalise. We can’t help it. But be aware of you are doing it. Heuristics may fail.
See also
- Policy as dangerous inflexibility at the wild frontier
- It’s okay to generalise
- Heuristics
- ↑ Though try telling that to Nancy Cartwright, author of How the Laws of Physics Lie.