Holivaram - no?
Holivar is not fashionable. It is infantile. This is not serious. This is prejudice . This list can be continued.
Why? Probably, because it is pleasant for everyone to consider themselves an individual and to be content with the notorious freedom of choice. No one likes being forced upon. In the open form. In the hidden - very much love. That is, as it were, "this is the personal choice of everyone." I will not try to encroach on the myth of "the personal matter of everyone."
What is Holivar? This is a holy war. But this is just a denial. In the IT world, as a rule, this denotes the collision of two contra positions with the arguments of AD HOMINEM. Now, the conceptual plane has expanded, and holivar denote any collision of two positions. Because Holivar is a stigma. Convenient to brand that does not like. But not everyone can defend his position, and therefore he does not like it. This is especially not pleasant when there is no position. And now any discussions recorded in the category of holivars - good or bad.
There is a difference between a constructive discussion and a holivar. There is a difference between the AD HOMINEM and AD VERITATEM arguments. But now nobody wants to see this difference. I love discussions, discussions, disputes, holivars - call it what you want. Since the collision of two contra positions is a contradiction, only that can lead to dynamics, development. Allows you to make a choice. Maybe change it. Truth is not born in a dispute, a collective delusion is born there. But do not be a dispute, not to be born anything at all.
')
Even from the course of formal logic (here, except that the dialectic stands apart, and paraconsistent logic), we know that two opposing theses cannot be true. One of them is exactly false. Discussion gives an approximation to the perfect opposite. Its resolution brings it closer to the ideally correct version.
There are holivars in physics (oh, how many are there!), In philosophy (I’m generally silent - it’s just built on them), biology, mathematics ... wherever there is a chance to meet two opposing concepts. Because the choice between one of them must be done - both can not be chosen. And in IT suddenly prudent, adults say that this is childishness. Why?
For example, the 1991 dispute between Tanenbaum and Linus Torvalds on monolithic and micronuclear cores is an empty holivar? And what about Freud and Jung about the role and essence of the unconscious in the human psyche? These are extremely useful materials, which themselves provide great food for thought, allow you to form your point of view and draw conclusions. The specificity of any dispute lies in the fact that the interlocutors of each other are almost never persuade, they are enemies, they cannot lose face, pride will not allow them to admit defeat. But readers will not be deceived by their intuition, they will lie on the strong side, on the side of the one whose arguments look stronger, and for them this is an excellent material. The dispute is important in the first place in the work of the viewer.
Habr in my opinion provides an excellent platform for conducting constructive discussions (although, for someone, and they are holivars) a level higher than the ENT and allows you to really benefit from these "Holivars." I deliberately did not raise the issue of the quality of discussions - they should be of the highest quality, by default. But the fact that they are not conducted poorly is not the fault of the disputes themselves in essence, it is the fault of the debaters. Give at least the choice of others by the means of pros and cons if you don’t want to change your position yourself.
Why? Probably, because it is pleasant for everyone to consider themselves an individual and to be content with the notorious freedom of choice. No one likes being forced upon. In the open form. In the hidden - very much love. That is, as it were, "this is the personal choice of everyone." I will not try to encroach on the myth of "the personal matter of everyone."
What is Holivar? This is a holy war. But this is just a denial. In the IT world, as a rule, this denotes the collision of two contra positions with the arguments of AD HOMINEM. Now, the conceptual plane has expanded, and holivar denote any collision of two positions. Because Holivar is a stigma. Convenient to brand that does not like. But not everyone can defend his position, and therefore he does not like it. This is especially not pleasant when there is no position. And now any discussions recorded in the category of holivars - good or bad.
There is a difference between a constructive discussion and a holivar. There is a difference between the AD HOMINEM and AD VERITATEM arguments. But now nobody wants to see this difference. I love discussions, discussions, disputes, holivars - call it what you want. Since the collision of two contra positions is a contradiction, only that can lead to dynamics, development. Allows you to make a choice. Maybe change it. Truth is not born in a dispute, a collective delusion is born there. But do not be a dispute, not to be born anything at all.
')
Even from the course of formal logic (here, except that the dialectic stands apart, and paraconsistent logic), we know that two opposing theses cannot be true. One of them is exactly false. Discussion gives an approximation to the perfect opposite. Its resolution brings it closer to the ideally correct version.
There are holivars in physics (oh, how many are there!), In philosophy (I’m generally silent - it’s just built on them), biology, mathematics ... wherever there is a chance to meet two opposing concepts. Because the choice between one of them must be done - both can not be chosen. And in IT suddenly prudent, adults say that this is childishness. Why?
For example, the 1991 dispute between Tanenbaum and Linus Torvalds on monolithic and micronuclear cores is an empty holivar? And what about Freud and Jung about the role and essence of the unconscious in the human psyche? These are extremely useful materials, which themselves provide great food for thought, allow you to form your point of view and draw conclusions. The specificity of any dispute lies in the fact that the interlocutors of each other are almost never persuade, they are enemies, they cannot lose face, pride will not allow them to admit defeat. But readers will not be deceived by their intuition, they will lie on the strong side, on the side of the one whose arguments look stronger, and for them this is an excellent material. The dispute is important in the first place in the work of the viewer.
Habr in my opinion provides an excellent platform for conducting constructive discussions (although, for someone, and they are holivars) a level higher than the ENT and allows you to really benefit from these "Holivars." I deliberately did not raise the issue of the quality of discussions - they should be of the highest quality, by default. But the fact that they are not conducted poorly is not the fault of the disputes themselves in essence, it is the fault of the debaters. Give at least the choice of others by the means of pros and cons if you don’t want to change your position yourself.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/16081/
All Articles