respectfully, i think i’ll agree to disagree. my interpretation of the path you’re describing is exactly the kind of haskell elitism that i find really difficult about this community.
Please note that the point of the article is not to agree but to try to understand what the positions are.
If people agreed with what I wrote, this article (including its title) would not make much sense.
Also, it is productive to be able to disagree on some topics and agree on others.
I will make changes to my post based on this feedback.
I have set out to write about different mindsets, a valid criticism of that would be:
“The position you are describing is held by nobody”, rather than “I do not agree with that position”.
I will make it more clear that my goal is to catalog and understand different positions and not to seek consensus about which is the right one. This includes my side-notes about formalism and mathematics. I will add “IMO” to some side-notes.
I will make a note that there appears to be no consensus that formalism or mathematics are much less error prone than the empirical method. I remain surprised that there is no consensus on this, but my goal is not to argue validity of anyone’s viewpoint.
Thank you for your time and feedback.
I will make changes to my post based on this feedback.
I have set out to write about different mindsets, a valid criticism of that would be:
“The position you are describing is held by nobody”, rather than “I do not agree with that position”.
I will make it more clear that my goal is to catalog and understand different positions and not to seek consensus about which is the right one. This includes my side-notes about formalism and mathematics. I will add “IMO” to some side-notes.
I will make a note that there appears to be no consensus that formalism or mathematics are much less error prone than the empirical method. I remain surprised that there is no consensus on this, but my goal is not to argue validity,
Thank you for your time and feedback.