Since when does it say you have to demonstrate your understanding of a good reason? The way I use and understand it, you just have to demonstrate your understanding of the reason it exists, whether it’s good or bad.
But I do think that people tend to miss subtleties with Chesterton’s fence. For example recently someone told me Chesterton’s fence requires justifications for why to remove something not for why it exists—Which is close, but not it. It talks about understanding, not about justification.
At its core, it’s a principle against arguing from ignorance—arguments of the form “x should be removed because i don’t know why it’s there”.
I think people confuse it to be about justification because usually if something exists there’s a justification (else usually someone would have already removed it), and because a justification is a clearer signal of actual understanding, instead of plain antagonism, then a historic explanation.
“X exists because of incentives of the people who established it. They are rewarded for X, and punished for non-X, therefore...”
“That is uncharitable and motivated. I am pretty sure there must be a different reason. Try again.”
And, of course, maybe I am uncharitable and motivated. Happens to people all the time, why should I expect myself to be immune?
But at the same time I noticed how the seemingly neutral Chesterton fence can become a stronger rhetorical weapon if you are allowed to specify further criteria the proper answers must pass.
Right. I don’t think “That is uncharitable and motivated. I am pretty sure there must be a different reason. Try again.” is a valid response when talking about Chesterton’s fence. You only have to show your understanding of why something exists is complete enough—That’s easier to signal with good reasons for why it exists, but if there aren’t any then historic explanations are sufficient.
Chesterton’s fence might need a few clear Schelling fences so people don’t move the goalposts without understanding why they’re there ;)
Since when does it say you have to demonstrate your understanding of a good reason? The way I use and understand it, you just have to demonstrate your understanding of the reason it exists, whether it’s good or bad.
But I do think that people tend to miss subtleties with Chesterton’s fence. For example recently someone told me Chesterton’s fence requires justifications for why to remove something not for why it exists—Which is close, but not it. It talks about understanding, not about justification.
At its core, it’s a principle against arguing from ignorance—arguments of the form “x should be removed because i don’t know why it’s there”.
I think people confuse it to be about justification because usually if something exists there’s a justification (else usually someone would have already removed it), and because a justification is a clearer signal of actual understanding, instead of plain antagonism, then a historic explanation.
My case was somewhat like this:
“X is wrong.”
“Use Chesterton fence. Why does X exist?”
“X exists because of incentives of the people who established it. They are rewarded for X, and punished for non-X, therefore...”
“That is uncharitable and motivated. I am pretty sure there must be a different reason. Try again.”
And, of course, maybe I am uncharitable and motivated. Happens to people all the time, why should I expect myself to be immune?
But at the same time I noticed how the seemingly neutral Chesterton fence can become a stronger rhetorical weapon if you are allowed to specify further criteria the proper answers must pass.
Right. I don’t think “That is uncharitable and motivated. I am pretty sure there must be a different reason. Try again.” is a valid response when talking about Chesterton’s fence. You only have to show your understanding of why something exists is complete enough—That’s easier to signal with good reasons for why it exists, but if there aren’t any then historic explanations are sufficient.
Chesterton’s fence might need a few clear Schelling fences so people don’t move the goalposts without understanding why they’re there ;)