Deconstructing Dubious Aphorisms

[Prolix]

Some one recently repeated the saying  "the definition of insanity it to do the same thing over and over and expect a different result." To me this is just sloppy thinking even if it is attributed to Einstein among others. It is patently false to my mind because I believe it is impossible to do the same thing twice. Even that aside, entropy ensures that no matter how many times something similar is done eventually it will break down.

My thinking on the first point is that there are always minute factors that are different that may have an effect noticeable or not. For instance if I shoot an arrow at a target and then shoot another one in precisely the same way I will have been displaced in both time and space so although the two shots might seem to be identical they are not. Add to this that my circulatory system is chaotic in nature so that the first shot might be while my heart is pushing blood out and the second shot while it is drawing blood in.

For the second point let's say I am hitting a tennis ball off a wall, even if I can keep this up interminably by, say, using a perfect machine the tennis ball will wear out.

It really makes me wonder why people think these things are so brilliant.

Any thoughts or other aphorisms you wish to deconstruct or have deconstructed?

Any rebuttal of my deconstruction is also topical

[zanzibar]

I think the key may be on the word "expect".  You could repeat an action to see what will happen, but to expect a different result specifically might not be terribly wise if you suspect all factors are similar.

A more simple explanation of why it's worth while to repeat experiments is you might not know all the factors involved and of the factors you know of you might not understand them completely.  You don't even need to go into small details like circulatory systems etc.  Looking for the unexpected and finding it can lead to new knowledge.

It's not my favourite quote.

[Waterman]

I agree with zanzibar on the "expect" part.  However, if you try to sum up insanity in any one sentence there are going to be major flaws in your argument.  So the quote, I think, would be more of a way to give someone the IDEA of what insanity is.  Which it doesn't really do.  I think it does a better job describing someone who's an "idiot" or a child.

I like the idea of tearing these apart, because I love language and there are so many of them.  I, however, am far too drunk to think of one right now.

[Prolix]

In many cases expecting the same result is insane, of course it depends on what you define the result as being. For example it would be insane to expect a coin flip onto a flat surface to always be the same as the first flip unless you define the same result as being the coin laying flat on either top or bottom but not on edge. With sufficient skill or luck it might be possible to have it stand on edge but that would be unlikely.  It might also be possible to flip the coin so that heads always showed face up but it is also unlikely with a natural free flip.

Certainly the circulatory example was extreme but chaos theory holds that dynamic systems are sensitive to minute changes of initial conditions. Also the content of the bloodstream is unlikely to be homogeneous so that differences in the chemicals being carried to various part of the body can cause muscle spasm or fuzzy vision at a critical moment preventing even the semblance of similarity.

[enderandrew]

I prefer the Zen version.

"No man may step in the same river twice."

[Prolix]

well that again depends on the definitions of same and river.
a river is

A large stream of water flowing in a bed or channel and
      emptying into the ocean, a sea, a lake, or another stream;
      a stream larger than a rivulet or brook.

and a stream is

A current of water or other fluid; a liquid flowing
      continuously in a line or course, ...

so that the particular contents of the flow are irrelevant to the essence of the river nor is the course as long as the flow is continuous. This would suggest that should the flow stop and later restart it would be a different river but I do not know anyone who would actually agree with this suggestion.

[Kangold D]

Don't put your trust in aphorisms.

Catchy, eh? 

[khoridor]

It's even more silly when you combine quotes:

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
If you survive an accident, and are sane, would you reiterate it as often as possible, in hope of becoming incredibly strong ?
I'll personally stick with "what doesn't kill you doesn't kill you".

Well, on a more serious note, can anyone think of a quote that makes sense outside of its context ?

[LigH]

My preferred aphorism (and imagine, I read it on a car sticker!) is - roughly translated from german:

The future is no longer what it used to be.

__

I believe already the wish do deconstruct an aphorism is irrational, because:

An aphorism does not require to tell the truth, but to surpass the truth in just one sentence.

Please excuse that I don't remember its author, this one I read in a book of a more or less specialized aphorism author.

[zanzibar]

Seems like this is a thread about nitpicking.  I'm out.

[Prolix]

Actually I am not certain aphorism was quite the correct word in the first place but it is good enough, I guess.

A comprehensive maxim or principle expressed in a few words; a sharply defined sentence relating to abstract truth rather than to practical matters.

Surely this thread can contain picked nits but it is open enough for nit's wits too. I don't think it is a place for proclaiming ones 'happiness' but then

happiness is a warm gun

which I have always taken to refer to a man's member. I'm not certain if that implies that women cannot be happy. I guess it is just kind of a one sided saying.

[khoridor]

My preferred aphorism (and imagine, I read it on a car sticker!) is - roughly translated from german:

The future is no longer what it used to be.

Very nice... 

[enderandrew]

Anarchy: so good, it should be law.

[Parallo]

This thread reminds me of a story...

Once upon a time, two Serious Minded people were in Frodo's pub, having a few pints, and talking about the nature of Universe.

Hugo pointed out that most of what we consider “matter” is made up of empty space. “The distance between a nucleus, its electrons, and the nearest adjacent atom is comparatively large; why, that barstool over there shouldn't even be considered a solid!”

Amber responded, “but wait… As far as we can actually prove, that barstool might simply be a hallucination, for we're not actually seeing the barstool, we're processing electric signals in our heads generated by our optic nerves. And all they are doing is claiming certain wavelengths of light have bounced off an object. But what if the nerves are misfiring, which we all know happen quite often? So, we can’t really say whether or not the barstool even exists!”

Just then, a man approached them and said, “I couldn’t help but overhear you two talking. If I may, I have an experiment for you. Purely in the interest of a deeper understanding of the universe, of course.”

He then proceeded to pick up the barstool and pummel both Hugo and Amber squarely about the head and torso, because they were so obviouly pretentious assholes who deserved a beatdown.

Thus, they were enlightened.

[Mathy Stockington]

* Mathy Stockington laughs

Parallo very well done.