Programming systems can be treated scientifically, but they can also be treated deductively (like math). It's possible to have full knowledge of what's going on if you treat it like a deductive system. If your primary way of learning is through experiment, then yes, you will be wrong a lot of the time. But then I would never claim you had a good reason for believing anything.
I can't view the stackoverflow link right now, but the top answer basically claimed "I feel strongly about my reasoning, but nevertheless, I could be wrong". How could that be unless you made a mistake? The system is logical!
I question the top answer as being a good habit at all. It's like saying "there's probably some magic going on that I'll never understand". There's a reason why you're wrong. You should probably find out and absorb the reason instead of pretending like the world operates in some mysterious way.
I don't think I ever denied that there are technical fields where coming to a conclusion takes time. Should I be apologizing for my use of "most"? The only point I was trying to make was that "guaranteeing your interpretations are correct" is not a constraint (see my response to lumberjack). As a result, being able to form correct conclusions is possible as a non-expert. Is this a surprising statement to anyone?
tjradcliffe's post reads essentially as "non-experts are so unaware/ignorant that they form naive beliefs such as yours". What a constructive comment! Maybe I should just shut up and listen to the experts!
"It is very, very difficult to get hold of the ambiguous morass that is the true leading edge, which is so far away from the layperson's event horizon they aren't even aware it exists, and so end up believing that it's not that hard to follow the evidence in most situations."
What are you talking about here? How does that conflict with what I said? In my original post, one thing I asserted is that you should be aware of your assumptions. I don't see the relevance of saying "knowledge of the leading edge is hard to attain" or "the leading edge is ambiguous".
"You cannot be an expert in every field and actually follow the evidence to make up your own conclusion (which btw does not guarantee that your interpretation of the evidence is correct)."
It's pretty easy to follow the evidence in most situations, actually. That doesn't make me an expert. That makes me a person who understands the methodology of science, logic, and statistics. You have to know precisely what your assumptions (observations) are and how to make correct conclusions from those assumptions. The only constraints are your time, your determination, and your ability to get the original research (a constraint is not "guaranteeing your interpretation is correct").
Some people are highly opinionated and don't have the understanding to match. That doesn't mean you can't have any sort of understanding as a non-expert.
"As an aspiring physicist I feel helpless every time I'm at the doctor's office. I cannot just "follow the evidence"."
Doctors aren't necessarily better trained at making inferences and recommendations. Consider their education. Some of them are very poor thinkers.
"so by implication you're saying it's immoral to enforce laws against all lesser offenses"
Amazingly, the parent didn't actually say or imply that. "worse crimes go unpunished" doesn't imply "enforcing laws against lesser offenses is immoral".
I don't deny there's a genetic component and I don't believe stress is the single cause. I'm not well read on mental illness. But in the context of this story, stress was a cause (or trigger, whatever you want to call it) for a certain kind of behavior. It didn't seem like Giulia had any problems before her job.
"Some days, the stress of having to shower was too much. It was impossible to eliminate the stress enough since so much of it was misreactions to very low stress levels."
Some people can manage being under a lot of stress. Some people can't. It sucks that you can't take preventative measures--such as eliminating the stressful environment indefinitely--if you suspect serious psychological harm.
I had a lot of experience programming in high school. When I practiced on my own, it never seemed like work because it was fun and I had experience telling me that I could accomplish something meaningful. Something made me feel confident in my ability to produce and discover.
When I was an undergraduate, a lot of my peers who didn't have a similar CS background struggled. I experienced this myself when I transferred into the mathematics program. I never had a serious engagement with mathematics until I was in university.
I think reaching the stage where an activity becomes natural requires a serious personal engagement. That is, you have understand the questions which guide the activity (your interests have to align) and you have to have the freedom to ask and answer your own questions (being able to solve your own problems). The activity has to become personal in some sense.
Statements of preference are different than assertions about the world. The comic is funny, but it does have an antiphilosophical spirit, especially if you think it relates to the present conversation.
I'm sorry. I care. (sorry (sorry)) ((((((sorry))))))
One piece of advice I would give is to be open with your kids. Don't be afraid to talk about certain things, including your own insecurities and dogmas. Speaking from my own experience, a restricted dialogue can lead to frustration, conflict, and anxiety. If a kid isn't comfortable asking questions, he'll guess at the answer and worry about being wrong. What happens when he's wrong? All I'll say is that it's pretty difficult to have a calm resolution when the subject matter cannot be discussed.
I'm making no guarantees about success... but at least you'll have a "healthy" relationship (healthier than mine).
"Yes, the homogenized group of Americans, Europeans, Indians, Chinese, other Asian and Middle Easterners present in the valley clearly won't engage in outreach to skilled people.
Another popular meme: those greedy capitalists are constantly lobbying congress to give them permission to reach out to skilled people from around the world in order to lower wages. Better stop them, it's bad for workers!" -yummyfajitas
It's pretty clear to me that staunch isn't talking about racial homogeneity:
I'm confused. Where was it ever implied by the parent that running a startup is "easy and riskless if you just have enough smarts and talent" and that "Startups don't require any skill or effort"?
The point, that I understood, from the parent is that the job (SV?) culture is highly homogenized and that there isn't enough outreach to skilled people who don't "fit". Did I misunderstand? If I didn't, do you not believe there's any amount of truth to this?
you're telling me that you can't imagine any sort of situation where locking your bike would be necessary?
"Only once in four years did a university security guard ask me to take it outside and lock it up. I asked why and he said: "university policy doesn't allow bikes in the building." I responded that it wasn't a bike. It was a frame and would only be a bike when assembled with wheels which it wasn't when in the building."
"It's what the article is about. Did you read it?"
Arranging a course so that your students never struggle with the material is one thing. Never bending to your students' needs, as a teacher, is another. A teacher can provide a lot of opportunities for the students to struggle with the material. But I think it's ridiculous (and lazy) to teach without any regard for pedagogy, especially with high school students.
I know exactly what the point of the article is. Thanks for asking.
By the way, "cautiously [guiding them] through every problem in life, or in education" communicates a very different thing from "[putting in] more effort to make classes "fit" a student's preferences".
"The reason I did not continue on to teach physics was partially due to an insistence that it was teachers who needed to expend more effort to make classes "fit" a student's preferences so that their learning would be a gradual climb."
What's wrong with that?
"You learn material by flailing, not by floating."
I can't view the stackoverflow link right now, but the top answer basically claimed "I feel strongly about my reasoning, but nevertheless, I could be wrong". How could that be unless you made a mistake? The system is logical!