It makes me smile to see programmers having the same arguments about language that philosophers have been having about stories for three thousand years.
@Mainebot I suspect that many programmers would consider philosophy the least relevant branch of the humanities.
Kind of a real shame.
The humanities in general get endless amounts of shit from other disciplines, but then you see shockingly immoral silicon valley 'disruption' and then suddenly "oh no how could we ever have foreseen this no one could have predicted this," but seriously, a philosophy student, an English major, or even just a rhetorician could have fixed your problem before it started.
@Mainebot @starbreaker Yeah, but humanity majors have basically run the world for the past hundred years. Don't most politicians have backgrounds in Poli sci and law?
From my experience, Poli sci and law are pretty well-removed from what traditionally passes for the humanities.
When I was in school, the only time we had anyone from either discipline in a class was because it was a firm requirement to graduate. Non-participatory, simple classes, in it for the grade. In the same way I had science prerequisites, so I took weather science and statistics.
I am not a meteorologist, nor am I a statistician.
@Mainebot @starbreaker My frustration when I took most history classes was there was no way to prove if you are right, so what is the point? If I disagree with another scientist, I can go into the lab and figure out which one of us is right. Whereas when I took Science, Technology And the World, a history class, it basically felt like every essay was an opinion piece.
@starbreaker @Mainebot Right, but what is the point then? One person says this is the best for the people, another person says this. Being better at rhetoric doesn't make your way better.
@Canageek @Mainebot Rhetoric will only get you so far. Suppose I want to argue for a particular interpretation of a literary work. I can't just make shit up, no matter how eloquent I might be. I've got to support my arguments by specific references to the text I'm interpreting.
Likewise, if I'm arguing for a particular interpretation of historical events, I need evidence based ideally on primary sources written by those directly involved or affected.
@Mainebot @starbreaker So what are the implications of that?
It's like having a disagreement. You're fighting, you don't want to. You can choose how best to say something without compromising your interpretation of the truth of it. HOW you say it will impact its reception, and dictate events going forward, not just the truth of the statement itself.
@starbreaker @Canageek
let me be clear: When I say rhetoric of style, I don't mean the rules of argumentation and persuasion. I mean the literal way that written language can be rendered in different presentations for different situations. Compare a contract with an informal agreement about the same thing. They're stylistically as far apart as can be, but nominally fulfill the same purpose.