site banner
sockpuppet2  4mo ago (astralcodexten.com)   3129 thread views

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
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So 'the purpose of a system is what it does' is kind of stupid when you refer to systems which genuinely accomplish their stated purpose. The police catch most criminals. The subway transports a lot of people and most people who live in New York use the subway to get around. Duh. That both spend a lot of money doing dumb things as well('the purpose of the police is to idle their vehicles') is irrelevant. Duh.

But, when you get to organizations that don't do their stated purpose and instead choose to do other things, it becomes more reasonable. The purpose of NASA is firstly to make claims about global warming and secondly to explore space. The purpose of the public school system is primarily to put taxpayers on the hook for corrupt construction deals and secondly to pay staff, with educating kids a distant third. Both of these claims are debatable but they are not absurd. The purpose of a system is what it does is a statement referring to institutional capture. It's not a universal law.

The purpose of NASA is firstly to make claims about global warming and secondly to explore space.

You're more right than you know!

TITLE I — SHORT TITLE, DECLARATION OF POLICY, AND DEFINITIONS SHORT TITLE

Sec. 101. This act may be cited as the “National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958”. DECLARATION OF POLICY AND PURPOSE

Sec. 102. (a) The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.

(b) The Congress declares that the general welfare and security of the United States require that adequate provision be made for aeronautical and space activities. The Congress further declares that such activities shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, a civilian agency exercising control over aeronautical and space activities sponsored by the United States, except that activities peculiar to or primarily associated with the development of weapons systems, military operations, or the defense of the United States (including the research and development necessary to make effective provision for the defense of the United States) shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, the Department of Defense; and that determination as to which such agency has responsibility for and direction of any such activity shall be made by the President in conformity with section 201 (e).

(c) The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:

(1) The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;

(2) The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles;

...

https://www.nasa.gov/history/national-aeronautics-and-space-act-of-1958-unamended/

That no good, dirty, rotten commie... Dwight Eisenhower. ;)

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats