TL;DW According to the perons, it’s based on counting sheep and from base 20. 1 score = 20 sheep. 2 score = 40 sheep.
To get to 50, you have 2.5 score, but they don’t say “two and a half”. They are quite Germanic and say “halfway to 3” (Germans do this too). So, 50 = half three score.
The video also points out that English has (as the hodgepodge of a language it is) yet another remnant of Germanic languages: 13-19 are not “te(e)n-three to te(e)n-nine”, but “three-te(e)n to nine-te(e)n”, just like in German “drei-zehn bis neun-zehn”.
It’s quite easy to mock other languages, but there’s always a reason for why things are the way they are. Think of Chesterton’s fence.
By and large, there’s a reason for everything, but it’s just not always a good reason.
If I have 100 rocks and take away 8, the answer to how many rocks I Have should not require a math problem. We’re counting, not making change. If your counting system isn’t decimal-based, you’re no better off than the US using imperial measurements.
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.
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.
I think the point is more that you should take care to consider why it was put there because it might be something that is not immediately obvious.
You should identify how a structure interacts with it’s current environment.
OK, but what if it was put there to stop something that only happens once every 10 years? Without taking the time to learn this, you might tear it down and then after a few years you’re scrambling to solve a problem that was already solved.
I’m very hostile to excuses for conservatism because they’re often positions to apologize for power structures that have a secondary gain. The point I’m making is you should never approach something that previously existed as if it was beneficial by default. It’s often not and that’s a fallacy as much as automatically believing it’s useless. That’s what this guy was doing with his Catholic apologia.
You should consider history to develop predictive theories(like what you’re describing). But those are always subordinate to observable reality and bothering with trying to justify them too much is generally worthless. Sometimes you just need to act, considering inaction is an action itself.
In essence, it’s a bad argument because it both presupposes you don’t interrogate why things exist(you do, that’s the entire point of the argument in the first place) and argues that an unknown reason might exist you might have to defer to. No shit. There might also be an unknown reason that it’s incredibly destructive. Neither of those themselves are an argument, but one is certainly an appeal to tradition masked by an analogy.
For a real explanation of this watch this illuminating video.
TL;DW According to the perons, it’s based on counting sheep and from base 20. 1 score = 20 sheep. 2 score = 40 sheep.
To get to 50, you have 2.5 score, but they don’t say “two and a half”. They are quite Germanic and say “halfway to 3” (Germans do this too). So, 50 = half three score.
The video also points out that English has (as the hodgepodge of a language it is) yet another remnant of Germanic languages: 13-19 are not “te(e)n-three to te(e)n-nine”, but “three-te(e)n to nine-te(e)n”, just like in German “drei-zehn bis neun-zehn”.
It’s quite easy to mock other languages, but there’s always a reason for why things are the way they are. Think of Chesterton’s fence.
This comment makes me so sleepy…
I just tried to say tentyfive like four times in a row and I couldnt speak for 20 seconds after that. Thank you.
By and large, there’s a reason for everything, but it’s just not always a good reason.
If I have 100 rocks and take away 8, the answer to how many rocks I Have should not require a math problem. We’re counting, not making change. If your counting system isn’t decimal-based, you’re no better off than the US using imperial measurements.
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
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.
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
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.
I think the point is more that you should take care to consider why it was put there because it might be something that is not immediately obvious.
OK, but what if it was put there to stop something that only happens once every 10 years? Without taking the time to learn this, you might tear it down and then after a few years you’re scrambling to solve a problem that was already solved.
@Kellamity@sh.itjust.works
I’m very hostile to excuses for conservatism because they’re often positions to apologize for power structures that have a secondary gain. The point I’m making is you should never approach something that previously existed as if it was beneficial by default. It’s often not and that’s a fallacy as much as automatically believing it’s useless. That’s what this guy was doing with his Catholic apologia.
You should consider history to develop predictive theories(like what you’re describing). But those are always subordinate to observable reality and bothering with trying to justify them too much is generally worthless. Sometimes you just need to act, considering inaction is an action itself.
In essence, it’s a bad argument because it both presupposes you don’t interrogate why things exist(you do, that’s the entire point of the argument in the first place) and argues that an unknown reason might exist you might have to defer to. No shit. There might also be an unknown reason that it’s incredibly destructive. Neither of those themselves are an argument, but one is certainly an appeal to tradition masked by an analogy.