Augustus
…
When we look at the world around us, should we start with the assumption that things that exist have value that derives from their mere existence?
In addition, should we assume that something that has existed for a long time, has even more value, simply because it has existed for a long time? Something that has existed for a day or a year has a tiny amount of 'intrinsic value', 10 years gives a bit, 100 years a lot, and 1000 years a huge amount (See the Lindy Effect for a similar concept)
Or do things only get their value from a 'rational' analysis of tangible or identifiable qualities that they possess?
That is when looking at something currently in existence, it is assumed to be beneficial unless 'proved' otherwise, rather than it is assumed to start from a position of 'zero' and ascribed its value through 'reason' alone. To advocate against something that has existed for a long time would thus require a huge bias in the burden of proof: the case for the status quo or slight change requires less support than the one in favour of fundamental change. Or should an ancient tradition simply start from 'zero' the same as a newly minted idea when the 2 of them are compared?
As an example: Judaism (or other ancient religion) exists and has done for thousands of years, as such it must be performing some kind of positive function in some way. This positive function exists irrespective of our ability to identify, quantify or describe it on 'rational' grounds. Moreover, we should assume that there are aspects of it that we don't understand and factor these into our judgement. Due to our imperfect cognitive abilities, these 'unknown positives' must be assumed to exist, especially in things that have existed a long time, and even more so regarding things (such as religions) that exist in complex systems.
While religion has been used as an example, the idea is meant to apply to anything from ideology, institutions, theory, music, philosophy, etc.
An important note: This idea is meant as a heuristic not an absolute rule. It therefore describes a general truth, not an absolute truth. A general truth is not refuted by a single specific counterexample, it is refuted if it is wrong in general.
It also doesn't mean all change is bad, we should never change anything, or that everything that exists is good and we shouldn't get rid of any of it. It simply means 'tradition', in general, should get a head start over 'progress', and the more ancient the tradition, or the more radical the progress the bigger the head start is (but never large enough that it cannot be overcome).
In addition, should we assume that something that has existed for a long time, has even more value, simply because it has existed for a long time? Something that has existed for a day or a year has a tiny amount of 'intrinsic value', 10 years gives a bit, 100 years a lot, and 1000 years a huge amount (See the Lindy Effect for a similar concept)
Or do things only get their value from a 'rational' analysis of tangible or identifiable qualities that they possess?
That is when looking at something currently in existence, it is assumed to be beneficial unless 'proved' otherwise, rather than it is assumed to start from a position of 'zero' and ascribed its value through 'reason' alone. To advocate against something that has existed for a long time would thus require a huge bias in the burden of proof: the case for the status quo or slight change requires less support than the one in favour of fundamental change. Or should an ancient tradition simply start from 'zero' the same as a newly minted idea when the 2 of them are compared?
As an example: Judaism (or other ancient religion) exists and has done for thousands of years, as such it must be performing some kind of positive function in some way. This positive function exists irrespective of our ability to identify, quantify or describe it on 'rational' grounds. Moreover, we should assume that there are aspects of it that we don't understand and factor these into our judgement. Due to our imperfect cognitive abilities, these 'unknown positives' must be assumed to exist, especially in things that have existed a long time, and even more so regarding things (such as religions) that exist in complex systems.
While religion has been used as an example, the idea is meant to apply to anything from ideology, institutions, theory, music, philosophy, etc.
An important note: This idea is meant as a heuristic not an absolute rule. It therefore describes a general truth, not an absolute truth. A general truth is not refuted by a single specific counterexample, it is refuted if it is wrong in general.
It also doesn't mean all change is bad, we should never change anything, or that everything that exists is good and we shouldn't get rid of any of it. It simply means 'tradition', in general, should get a head start over 'progress', and the more ancient the tradition, or the more radical the progress the bigger the head start is (but never large enough that it cannot be overcome).
