You haven't proven that it can't be proven that 2 + 2 = 5. All you have proven is that if 2 + 2 = 5, then mathematics are inconsistent. Which they could be; you can't just assume math and logic are consistent.
Well, you were responding to someone who was using the correct formal terms. You, after all, don't dispute the second theorem - but given it uses the term "consistent" you can hardly complain when someone makes their argument using the same terminology as the theorem you agree with!
Interested in what you define "consistent" and "valid" as in laymans terms though.
back up 200 years and replace plumbing with reading...
Your argument isn't evidence for anything at all. There's a big difference between reading and coding: reading is a very useful method of communication. Everyone should be literate just like everyone should be able to speak. Coding, on the other hand, is much more along the lines of plumbing than language.
There was a book written by Douglas Rushkoff called Program or be programmed[1] wherein he asserts quite a compelling argument for why learning at least a basic understanding of programming and how a computer works actually is (or very soon will be) just as important as being able to read.
The basic crux of the issue for me is this: you can control a society via the flow of information through that society. Both reading and more recently, programming are activities intimately connected to the flow of information through modern society. Along with an understanding of programming comes a greater understanding of computers to computer networks to privacy issues and all manner of things that more people should be thinking about more conciously, regardless of whether they wish to program as a career.
While no doubt the flow of material through plumbing pipes is also quite important for societies in general, I don't think an understanding of plumbing affords quite the same insights and protections against being potentially manipulated by the powers that be as one might acquire through the pursuit of reading and programming.
Of course people will need to be informed on security and privacy on computers, but that doesn't require an understanding of coding. I know how to safely drive a car, for example, but I have no idea how it works under the hood (and frankly, I don't have the time or energy to learn this).
Coding really is a specialized job. For sure, some people would be better off learning it because it can be useful, but everyday people don't need to know how to code just like they don't need to know how a car works. All they need to know is how to drive safely, or use the computer securely.
And really, I don't get this whole "learn to code, learn how your computer works" idea. When I first learned ruby, I didn't magically gain an understanding of filesystems and networks and all those other things. My dad, on the other hand, who doesn't know how to code, in fact he didn't even know what a kernel was, can fix your computer up in a jiffy (hardware and software both, particularly windows). He's in fact still better than me at this, because he knows all the intimate little details of the windows UI and what each thing does, what each error probably means.
So the point is, you don't need to learn how to code to know how to use a computer well, and learning javascript won't really help you with that either. If all you want is to know how to protect your computer from the powers that be, don't learn to code; just listen to what the experts have to say on the subject.
Very well said.
My understanding of computers came far before my understanding of code.
I think people are falsely equating all the marks of a good programmer as being the benefits to learning how to program.
"It makes you logical, methodical, organized", etc etc.
Yes, these are all qualities you'll find in a good coder. However I don't think programming is a good way to teach these thoughts! NOT AT ALL!
I learned all those things by writing English papers. I had lots of problems writing in my early years, so I studied, and worked hard. I learned how to outline my thoughts. I learned how to properly revise a work. I learned how to organize my thoughts into logical units. I learned how to make those logical units flow into one another. I learned how to arrange those units so that they each make sense in context. I learned how to target a unit to a specific audience.
I think programming would've been a terrible way to learn those skills. English is at least somewhat forgiving. Even if your sentences aren't perfect, the general idea still comes across.
Learning to program involves weird and obscure syntax, you're constantly fighting with the compiler, you're dealing with stack-traces a mile deep every time you make a mistake.
Programming is an incredibly challenging way to learn problem solving.
Obviously I found that challenge to be worthy of pursuit. Certainly we shouldn't be discouraging anyone from learning how to code. At the same time though, I think it's incredibly offensive to say that everyone should know|learn how to code.
Many programs are tiny, written in poorly-regarded languages (Excel, app macros, shell, etc.), and written by people without the title of "software engineer." Many times the number of well-known products like Word or Stack Overflow. But that doesn't mean they are not programs and it doesn't mean they are not serving useful purposes. And the number of areas where little programs could help in the future is huge.
Programming is not a specialized job and it does not require specialized knowledge. Even idiots can program. The fact that you can program shows that you had interest and access to computers but it does not put you in a special club. Programmers ARE everyday people, not a priestly caste who can be distinguished from birth. And in the last few decades their numbers have dramatically increased - with each generation's clueless and accidental beginners becoming the next generation's experts.
We don't tell people "please don't learn any math" or "please don't learn any geography" even though most people will not become specialists or need a specialist's understanding. These are still generally useful things and things which make you an educated and modern person. We don't know where they will be useful or to whom. It benefits many more individuals to know something about these, and it greatly benefits our society that many individuals know something about them.
"just listen to what the experts have to say" is something that started to change as of the Gutenberg Bible, thank God.
I don't think even Rushkoff would disagree that not all people have the drive to learn programming. And I would agree that programming is not the only way that one can learn the knowledge that one should have in the modern world so that one can be adequately informed on security/privacy issues and so on. But it certainly helps. Coding is becomming a less specialised job by the decade regardless of what any of us think about it. If one espouses the idea that 'programming is as important as reading' even if it may not yet be literally or globally true, then we are aiming for the stars and in the process, at least perhaps hitting a mountain.
No doubt your father is an acomplished man, but he would be a better Windows power user or sys admin if he was comfortable with PowerShell. One of my pet peeves are server admins who don't thnk they need to know any programming and thus don't truly understand the requirements of the developers who interact with their servers.
I feel that we're discussing things (if you'll excuse the cliché) too far inside the box. If one has a very blinkered view of the advantages that programming can provide then yeah, it's just a highly specialised tool, useful only to a few. But that's not what programming is to me. To me, its about communication, expression of ideas and discovery.
You say that learning JavaScript won't help you to understand your computer better. I disagree. By learning JavaScript, you will involuntarily learn more about one or more web browsers and perhaps from there, you may become more informed on how information is transmitted across the web and perhaps from there, you may learn to better protect yourself through more consistent use of encrypted data transfer, just as an example. You are right when you say learning to program does not magically impart knowledge of file systems or networking but when I learned Ruby, I would have had to try pretty damn hard not to learn by osmosis at least something I didn't know before about these topics while I was learning the language.
So yes, in the narrowest sense, programming is not currently as important as reading. But what does the public potentially gain if we suggest that it is? And I predict that the distance between ideal and reality will close as the decades pass.
Good point and one of the things the powers that be hated about Gutenberg and those who wanted to print Bibles in the vernacular - was they did not want the hoi poli learning to read and getting ideas above their station.
More recently similar arguments were made against educating freed slaves in the USA
I don't think the example about the zombie is good evidence for children noticing things more than adults. As he says, the kids' favourite plant was The Chomper. Why would that be their favorite plant? The only explanation I can think of is that they like the fact that it eats zombies. So it goes without saying that they would pay attention to the moment The Chomper eats the zombie and all the little details of the event.
Also, we all pay attention to different things, and ignore different things. So even though children notice a lot of things we don't, we probably notice a lot of things they don't. In fact, I'd bet that us adults could notice more things than kids, if we tried. The problem is that what we notice is biased by our expectations which have evolved over the years (for example, we've learned to ignore the zombie arm sticking out of the plant because it isn't important), whereas children look at everything with fresh eyes, which forces them to pay attention, which in turn makes them notice things we've stopped looking for long ago. So in the end, maybe kids do tend to notice things more than us, but it's just because they have yet to learn to close their eyes.
Looks interesting, but you've got a contradiction on your signup page: the email is obligatory (which I personally don't like), but it says optional inside the text field.
I agree, but I think that with a great IDE for stack languages which would track the stack and the stack effects of functions, and display it all in a convenient way, most of the problem would be solved. It would be hard to read code without it, but I'll argue that the same could be said about syntax highlighting. And honestly, I think reading this kind of code can become natural with practice.
Indeed, I think great tooling can really help keep track of stack effects (I'd also say that combinators, rather than dup, swap, drop, ..., make you generally think less about the stack). You should check out the Brief editor as a prototype idea. Just having immediate feedback with step forward/back as you edit makes a huge difference. http://trybrief.com
I agree, but even without IDE assistance, many concatenative languages either suggest annotating your code with stack effect diagrams[1] or refuse to compile without them. (StrongForth, Factor)
I mostly agree with what you're saying, but I also mostly agree with what the post is saying.
The point is that you can learn to control your reactions to things, and it's a good thing. I used to be extremely stressed out by any social situation. I eventually stopped being so through lots of practice at controlling myself and telling myself "who cares what other people think of me?". And I'm all the better for it. I also have learned to ignore insults and failure (well, ignore them emotionally, though I still try to analyze them rationally), because they give negative emotions that I don't enjoy. However, I still feel nostalgia when I realize "oh shit, that happened seven years ago?!!", and I still feel a rush of excitement when I succeed at getting everything done in a limited amount of time.
Also, the fact that I'm a tiny speck in the universe is the reason I focus on myself. If nothing really matters, you get to choose what does. And I choose myself.
I've been through a process of changing my emotional reactions, and I think my experiences are interesting enough to share. Just to situate you, I'm in secondary 5 (I'm 16), and back when I was in elementary school, I was super shy (I rarely ever said a word, and I hated talking because I would always notice some imperfection in what I would say which would make me feel stupid), and I was quite empathic (if another kid would cry, so would I). Also, I'm much happier now than back in elementary school.
In grade 5, I realized that life was meaningless and I might as well stop caring and just enjoy myself. So I started a long process of emotional change. The easiest thing to get rid of was my empathy, which I got rid of in grade 6. I can still feel sad or happy for others, but it's by choice. I can easily stop myself from emulating their emotions, and in fact I don't anymore by default. Then there was the huge stress that came up whenever I had to get into a social situation. That took a much longer time to remove. For years I would tell myself "who cares what other people think of me?", and try to get myself to do something which would put me into a social situation, but it had very slow results. It wasn't until secondary 4 that I had (mostly) gotten rid of my shyness. And interestingly enough, the first thing to go was the emotion, and then the physical reaction. At some point in secondary 4, someone insulting me would not make me feel a thing, but it would make my eyes a bit waterry, and it would make me gulp.
Though I am now mostly not emotionally affected by bad situations, I have not been able to get rid of the effects of emotion that come from physical things, like pain or being tired. Being tired just zaps the joy out of me. Perhaps you can learn to withstand pain by trying to replace it by better emotions (for example, by cracking jokes), though I haven't experimented with that.
Piracy is just copying information. The only "harm" it might do is make the person selling the information lose a sale that might never have taken place (I, for one, would not have bought the things I have pirated if I couldn't have pirated them). Basically, I don't think that I should be less free just because someone wants to make more money.
If I was in charge, laws would only restrict the freedom of the people for the safety of others (and even then it would only do so by making harmful acts illegal, not by spying on them or other crazy things). Intellectual property would only outlaw copying for commercial use, which would allow artists to make money from movie theaters, concerts, etc.
I'm sure many problems would arise from such a world, but I doubt that they'll be worse than the problems from the current system, and I'm sure that given time and actually implementing it, the kinks could be worked out.
I think his point was that just because a crime is easy to commit, it doesn't mean that it's okay to do it.
Just because pirating things is easy, doesn't mean that it should be okay, in the same way that if getting guns and killing people was easy, it wouldn't mean that doing so is okay.
I was trying to say that guns will never be cheap enough or as easy to distribute. From the point of view highlighted by you, the comparison is even more flawed.
Downloading a file doesn't threaten anybody's life. Killing for the sake of killing is also not about money.
Before refrigerators happened, I'm sure there were companies selling ice to rich folk for a nice price. And if you lived then, I'm sure you could come up with all sorts of reasons for why refrigerators should be outlawed.
What I'm trying to say (and what I think jayzee was trying to convey) is that rbanffy's logic is flawed, and that just because pirating things is easy doesn't make it right. What we call pirating might be okay, but the idea that because something is easy to do it shouldn't be illegal is flawed. Attempting murder is arguably just as easy as downloading a pirated version of a game, but it's not okay. The only difference between the two is that it feels obvious that murder is harmful, but downloading that song instead of paying for it doesn't feel quite as bad.
That being said, I agree that copying things should be legal, but not because doing so is easy. I think that it should be legal to copy things because I don't think people should be allowed to restrict what I do just because they want more money.
I don't believe rbanffy ever said "easy." The actual word used was "unavoidable." The inevitable result of giving people the practically limitless ability to copy information without cost is that people will copy information.
In response to your earlier comment ("...just because a crime is easy to commit..."), the right question to be asking is why something that's inevitable should be considered a crime at all. You might as well outlaw the water cycle.
In that light, the question is not "How do we stop the inevitable," but "What do we do to keep making big money in harmony and cooperation with the inevitable?"
