[evan_a_a]

This is a literary device. The article continues to explain why this isn’t a simple problem, and it’s clear from the conclusion that the author understands the complexity.

>But it’s good to be reminded that we know a lot less about the world than we think. Much of our thinking about the world runs on a statistical edifice of extraordinary complexity, in which raw numbers—like population counts, but also many others—are only the most basic inputs. Thinking about the actual construction of these numbers is important, because it encourages us to have a healthy degree of epistemic humility about the world: we really know much less than we think.

[anal_reactor]

I guess this is why reading things other than technical documentation remains important.

[quietbritishjim]

Or it's a reason why literary devices should only be employed when they aren't distractingly wrong.

[PlatoIsADisease]

As someone who reads epistemology for fun. Its so much worse than you know.

Everything is basically a theory only judged on predictive capabilities. Even the idea that Earth is not at the center of the solar system is a judgement call of what we define as the solar system and center.

The math is simpler sure, but its arbitrary how we define our systems.

[lotsofpulp]

You lost me with your example. What could the word center mean if the thing that all the other things orbit around in the solar system is not referred to as being in the center?

[Atlas667]

Just cause knowledge can be reduced to predictive capabilities and judgement calls does not mean systems are defined arbitrarily. Everything is defined as to its relative function in/to society and our material endeavors and the social forces that limit or expand on areas of these systems.

First we have to live. That has implications; it's the base for all knowledge.

Knowledge is developing all the time and can be uncertain, sure, but the foundations aren't arbitrary.

You are doing an idealism.

[1718627440]

> Even the idea that Earth is not at the center of the solar system is a judgement call of what we define as the solar system and center.

If you don't have a definition of the solar system, the question about its center is meaningless. If you have then you can answer it according to that definition.

[sdwr]

I remember a lot of pop sci being centered around "elegance", looking for simple models that are broadly predictive. Newton, Galileo, Einstein, Darwin. Feels like people are leaning the other way now, and seeing reality as messy, uncertain, and multifaceted.

[vladms]

I tried to check a list of literary devices (Wikipedia) and couldn't exactly map to a specific category - would be interesting to know if there such a category.

The problem I have with this literary device is that I think it works if most / many questions would fit it then he would go to disapprove it. Using it, for me, kind of indirectly reinforces the idea that "there are many simple answers". Which I came to loathe as it is pushed again and again due to social media. Everything is "clear", "simple", "everybody knows better", "everybody did their research".

How did this literal device make you feel? Interested? Curious? Bored? When I read it my initial instinct was "no, it's definitely not simple, so if that's what are you going to explain me, I will not bother".

[ajkjk]

The list of literary devices on Wikipedia is a tiny subset of the list of literary devices in reality. Although in this case it is a well-documented one: it's just a rhetorical question.

anyway it is just a writing style. if you don't like it, fine. If you can't parse it, well, now you can.

[dugidugout]

I didn't feel much at all. It's simply a rhetorical question which sets up the explicit claim being made in the title of the article. The structure is quite clear if you account for the entire text which I'm sure the author intended. Do you mean to assert that reasoning through the Socratic tradition is something to loathe and push against? In other words, you are leaning on a lot of ancillary personal concerns which I don't believe the author earned.