November 12, 2007 at 16:59Holivaram - no?
Holivar is not fashionable. This is infantile. This is not serious. These are prejudices . This list goes on.
Why? Probably because everyone is pleased to consider himself an individuality and content with the notorious freedom of choice. No one likes being forced upon them. In an open form. In the hidden - they love it very much. That is, as it were, "this is a personal choice of everyone." I will not try to encroach on the myth of "everyone's personal business."
What is holivar? This is a holy war. But this is just a denomination. In the IT world, this usually means a clash of two counter positions, with the arguments of AD HOMINEM. Now, the conceptual plane has expanded, and the holivar denotes any collision of two positions. Because Holivar is a stigma. It’s convenient to brand what you don’t like. And not everyone can defend their position, and therefore do not like it. I especially don’t like it when there is no position. And now any discussions have been recorded in the category of holivars - is it good or bad.
There is a difference between constructive discussion and holivar. There is a difference between the arguments of AD HOMINEM and AD VERITATEM. But now no one wants to see this difference. I love discussions, discussions, disputes, holivars - call it what you want. Since the collision of two opposing positions is a contradiction, which can only lead to dynamics and development. Allows you to make a choice. Maybe change it. Truth is not born in a dispute, collective error is born there. But do not dispute, do not be born at all.
From the course of formal logic (except that dialectics stands apart, and paraconsistent logic), we know that two opposing theses cannot be true. One of them is definitely false. Discussion provides an approximation to the ideal opposite. Its resolution brings you closer to the ideal version.
There are holivars in physics (oh, how many of them are there!), In philosophy (in general I am silent - it is simply based on them), biology, mathematics ... wherever there is a chance to meet two opposing concepts. Because you have to make a choice between one of them - you won’t choose both. And in IT, suddenly prudent, adult people say that this is childish. Why?
For example, the argument between Tanenbaum and Linus Torvalds 1991years of monolithic and micronucleus nuclei - an empty holivar? And Freud and Jung about the role and essence of the unconscious in the human psyche? These are extremely useful materials, which in themselves provide great food for thought, allow you to form your point of view and draw conclusions. The specificity of any dispute is that the interlocutors will almost never convince each other, they are enemies, they cannot lose face, pride will not allow them to admit defeat. But readers will not deceive their intuition, they will lie on the strong side, on the side of the one whose arguments look stronger, and for them this is wonderful material. The debate is important at first very much in working for the viewer.
Habr, in my opinion, provides an excellent platform for constructive discussions (although for some people they are holivars) of a level higher than the ENT and allows you to really benefit from these "Holivars". I deliberately do not raise the question of the quality of discussions - they should be of the highest quality, by default. But what is being conducted poorly is not the fault of the disputes themselves, in essence, this is the fault of the debaters. Give at least the opportunity to choose others by means of pluses and minuses if you do not want to change your position yourself.
Why? Probably because everyone is pleased to consider himself an individuality and content with the notorious freedom of choice. No one likes being forced upon them. In an open form. In the hidden - they love it very much. That is, as it were, "this is a personal choice of everyone." I will not try to encroach on the myth of "everyone's personal business."
What is holivar? This is a holy war. But this is just a denomination. In the IT world, this usually means a clash of two counter positions, with the arguments of AD HOMINEM. Now, the conceptual plane has expanded, and the holivar denotes any collision of two positions. Because Holivar is a stigma. It’s convenient to brand what you don’t like. And not everyone can defend their position, and therefore do not like it. I especially don’t like it when there is no position. And now any discussions have been recorded in the category of holivars - is it good or bad.
There is a difference between constructive discussion and holivar. There is a difference between the arguments of AD HOMINEM and AD VERITATEM. But now no one wants to see this difference. I love discussions, discussions, disputes, holivars - call it what you want. Since the collision of two opposing positions is a contradiction, which can only lead to dynamics and development. Allows you to make a choice. Maybe change it. Truth is not born in a dispute, collective error is born there. But do not dispute, do not be born at all.
From the course of formal logic (except that dialectics stands apart, and paraconsistent logic), we know that two opposing theses cannot be true. One of them is definitely false. Discussion provides an approximation to the ideal opposite. Its resolution brings you closer to the ideal version.
There are holivars in physics (oh, how many of them are there!), In philosophy (in general I am silent - it is simply based on them), biology, mathematics ... wherever there is a chance to meet two opposing concepts. Because you have to make a choice between one of them - you won’t choose both. And in IT, suddenly prudent, adult people say that this is childish. Why?
For example, the argument between Tanenbaum and Linus Torvalds 1991years of monolithic and micronucleus nuclei - an empty holivar? And Freud and Jung about the role and essence of the unconscious in the human psyche? These are extremely useful materials, which in themselves provide great food for thought, allow you to form your point of view and draw conclusions. The specificity of any dispute is that the interlocutors will almost never convince each other, they are enemies, they cannot lose face, pride will not allow them to admit defeat. But readers will not deceive their intuition, they will lie on the strong side, on the side of the one whose arguments look stronger, and for them this is wonderful material. The debate is important at first very much in working for the viewer.
Habr, in my opinion, provides an excellent platform for constructive discussions (although for some people they are holivars) of a level higher than the ENT and allows you to really benefit from these "Holivars". I deliberately do not raise the question of the quality of discussions - they should be of the highest quality, by default. But what is being conducted poorly is not the fault of the disputes themselves, in essence, this is the fault of the debaters. Give at least the opportunity to choose others by means of pluses and minuses if you do not want to change your position yourself.