And you can just as well use it to vouch for change. If you don't understand why a change is being pushed for, maybe try to understand it first before trying to tear it down so therefore 'change is smarter'. Hopefully that now makes clear the ignorance and clickbaitiness of the title. Pretentious titles and articles never fail to show their faces on the daily here.
This is pretty strawman. You've got to broaden the mind a bit.
"We need change to have silly hat day and every one needs to scream at noon., if you don't understand the need for this change, maybe try to understand it first before trying to tear it down."
- you can't understand it because I made it up, just then, nonsensically. It is a valid change that me and my supporters are pushing for.
The difference with tradition is that there is a time bound element to it. Tradition is made up over time by rituals and force.
Your parents make you wash your hands before dinner and it becomes a ritual. By the time you're 18 years and become sufficiently atheistic to question everything to do with rituals and mysticism, you forgo washing your hands without fully understanding why that ritual was there to begin with.
Sure, now that we have understanding about germs and diseases, we know why this tradition is a good thing.
But we don't know everything about the mind and about humans evolution, we've got hundreds of thousands of years to catch up on with our new scientific method, so to throw everything out without understanding it would be naive.
If you want to call it strawmanning then I was mirroring the tactic of the author in the article. I thought it ignorant and pretentious to call tradition "smarter" as if changes, in general, are dumber; that's a strawman. And of course it's obvious, some things that are in place are in place because they're good, you should understand it first. And then you should likewise understand the need for changes; both are valid. Nowhere in my reply did I invalidate tradition, more defending the need for changes sometimes and pointing out the folly of the title.
So is your comment boiling down to "change is good and so is keeping things unchanged" ?
That are you trying to say? I'm not being facetious I'm just trying to get at what you responding to unless you are just responding to the clickbait title.
We do have the saying of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" for a reason. Change isn't inherently good. But obviously if something is broken it needs to be fixed which is a process of change.
