site banner

Scott: Come On, Obviously The Purpose Of A System Is Not What It Does

astralcodexten.com

This made me reflect that I hadn't actually thought critically about the phrase (at least, commensurate to how often it's used). For fun, if you think the purpose of a system is what it does, write what you think that means, before reading Scott's critique, then write if you've updated your opinion. For example: I think it's a useful way of re-framing obviously dysfunctional systems, so as to analyze their dysfunction, but Scott is persuasive that it's not a good means of understanding systems, in general, so people should be more cautious about adopting this framing and using the phrase, rhetorically.

(Spoilers go between two sets of "||")

13
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Very little to say other than that this is a terrible post. It hinges on the word "does" meaning "accomplishes," not "carries out."

Scott has begun to lean more and more into semantics over substance as the basis of his arguments. Some months back someone posted an argument from which structurally ran on a no-true-Scotsman fallacy established in the opening lines.

Can you link it?

Unfortunately no, or rather not without more internet archeology than I'm inclined to spend additional time to. I've just spent a bit longer than I'd care to admit looking through the last several months of pages (admittedly reviewing the quality contribution threads along the way), and not recognized the thread.