I think I see where you’re going but it’s a throwing the baby out with the dirty bathwater. This is where I think you strayed: ” Because there is no strict criteria [since all general rules differ in distinct fields] – it renders the paradigm entirely arbitrary, ergo: should there even be rule in these cases?” You have domains. Within each of those domains there are general guidelines or heuristics. “Rules of thumb”. They have fuzzy boundaries because they do not capture every instance. But because every instance isn’t captured, this does not then render the heuristic “entirely” arbitrary, or even arbitrary. Rather, it is imperfect. If you understand the principals that lie BEHIND the heuristic, you can compensate, which might require – in that instance – not using the heuristic in that instance. It also might require modifying the heuristic or replacing it if common exceptions show patterns. Or, you can teach the exceptions and the rules together., capturing even more than the original rule alone could. It becomes a series of “if/then” or “case” statements at that point, which is good programming.

I think I see where you’re going but it’s a throwing the baby out with the dirty bathwater. This is where I think you strayed:
 
” Because there is no strict criteria [since all general rules differ in distinct fields] – it renders the paradigm entirely arbitrary, ergo: should there even be rule in these cases?”
 
You have domains. Within each of those domains there are general guidelines or heuristics. “Rules of thumb”. They have fuzzy boundaries because they do not capture every instance.
 
But because every instance isn’t captured, this does not then render the heuristic “entirely” arbitrary, or even arbitrary.
 
Rather, it is imperfect.
 
If you understand the principals that lie BEHIND the heuristic, you can compensate, which might require – in that instance – not using the heuristic in that instance.
 
It also might require modifying the heuristic or replacing it if common exceptions show patterns.
 
Or, you can teach the exceptions and the rules together., capturing even more than the original rule alone could.
 
It becomes a series of “if/then” or “case” statements at that point, which is good programming.
===
Fair questions you raise.
a) Is there a universal rule for universalizing rules?
b) If there is not a universal rule for universalizing rules, then doesn’t that just mean anything goes and there are no rules?
====

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


9 × nine =

Leave a Reply