The in a. described gap (by empiricists like Popper) funny article on philosophy about Hegel is exactly why big data security fails so badly (the book I’ve been writing for a decade).
His philosophy was seen as the epitome of a great metaphysical system that purported to design a priori the basic structure of reality, which turned out to be mental or, in Hegel’s vocabulary, spiritual – something like a world soul or (worse) a Spinozist, pantheistic one God. Thus, Hegel’s system was not only grandiose metaphysics, it was also grandiose theology. Hegel also defended a holism that contradicted atomism (and fundamentalist epistemology) that naturally goes along with empiricism and appeared to be a doctrine of modern science.
It is usually argued that the acquisition of detailed specialist knowledge is associated with a loss of synthetic system knowledge.
Yet Popper’s wonderful empirical falsification method works well in conjunction with the broader grandiose thinking of Hegel. I think too many try to use one instead of the other.
It’s like finding the truth in gears rather than cognition (as I did in my RSAC presentation on “insecure learning“)
You definitely want to find the screw that will soon fail and crash an airplane (the hyped bug), but you also want to find the airline that has a habit of inefficiency leading to missed maintenance windows replacing the screws, before they tire (the underestimated efficiency of ethical management).
In my ISACA SF presentation I argue that because of this, Tesla repeatedly fails the most basic tests and is little more than a killer machine.
The best way to design a domain change comes from Gregory Bufithis, who poetically put it on social media as …
… too many use this new complexity of knowledge as an excuse for dominant stupidity.
This helps me explain why Facebook’s “dominant” security officer was about as effective at his job in 2015 as he was Grover shoe factory Operations manager in 1905.