CERN is an instrument to help us learn more about physics. Bringing it down would not help us make any change, and it would only hinder us from learning more about the truth of nature. You need a better example than that.
My point is the bounds of reality and knowledge are their own sort of fence. This isn't a stretch, because this is literally the philosophical point of the argument.
What if a high energy particle collision causes a miniature blackhole that destroys all life on earth? What if sailing across the uncharted sea makes God angry? What if knocking down the walls of my cage lets the monsters in? What if the act of investigating the fence destroys the fence?
> What if sailing across the uncharted sea makes God angry?
most of these examples are not structured as a Chesterton's fence type problem.
If there is a prohibition against sailing across the seas in the town's bylaws and you do not know why it is there, then you would have Chesterton's fence. You would then do investigation until you found an old letter from the mayor about his indigestion and a bad dream that told him that sailing across the seas made God angry.
Then as making God angry is understood as not a reasonable prohibition and the mayor's indigestion not sufficient cause for anything (especially as that mayor died years ago) it would be concluded that you could then sail.
The next day God will of course smite you and everyone in the town, but thems the breaks.
> This isn't a stretch, because this is literally the philosophical point of the argument.
This is reductio ad absurdium. There is a whole lot of contexts and dimensions where the concept of Chesterton's Fence can be applied before trying to dismiss it.
If you want a better example, you could ask "why so many religions teach to not eat pork?"[0]. Then we could look at historical contexts (i.e, understanding why it was put up in the first place), realize that most of those don't really apply to the modern world and "tear it down" if you want to enjoy delicious pulled pork sandwich.
> What if sailing across the uncharted sea makes God angry?
That is not a satisfactory answer to "why can't we explore the seas?", and any rational person would/should continue to investigate.
Its good to note that sometimes "it makes God angry" is not a TERRIBLE answer. Maybe X or Y act does on average create worse results for a person/group/society that aren't immediately apparent or obvious, but people managed to figure out via correlation or even evolutionary pressure (the groups that refused to eat pork lived longer and had more kids). Recognizing that X or Y on average causes a worse outcome for reasons you dont understand isnt a terrible thing.
Using the "sail the uncharted sea makes god angry" example.
Maybe that particular parts of the ocean has sea monsters (dangerous animals), and lots of whirlpools, and lots of poisonous fish that kill you if you eat them, and pirates.
People short hand that to "going there makes God angry" because they know people don't come back and when they do come back its in worse condition. But its never quite the same root cause. (hence why they blame god, and not the pirates for example) So there is no easy one answer unless theres concrete efforts to add together the stories of the guy who got attacked by pirates, the guy who had a run in with a giant squid, the guy who got poisoned, and the guy who almost drowned in a whirlpool.
You'd be pretty foolish to ignore the "god will get angry" warning, if you go there. You might have heard one or even two of the dangers, but not all of them that push the risk profile so high. Thats where Chestertons fence becomes useful and says you should be the person that gets all the stories together and realizes the real dangers and not dismiss the "god will get angry" warning off hand.
Even if we agree that it is not a terrible answer, we seem to agree that it is an insufficient one. Notice that I didn't say that the reaction to hear such an answer would be to ignore and take down the fence, but to keep investigating for the underlying truth.
Yes, but plenty of people would treat religious/ideological justifications as the reason and stop their investigation there.
"Make god angry" is parsed as "because these people had a religious belief i believe is false", and they assume they understand the Fence in question and mow it down.
If the issue is that someone in a position of power wants to make the change and all they are given is "religious/ideological justifications", then I'd say that an incomplete answer is indeed bad.
It's easier to dismiss 20 different people saying the exact same, meaningless "God will be angry" answer than to dismiss 20 different tales of "someone two/three/six generations ago got attacked/drowned/never was seen again after going to the ocean".
Such "laws" or rules of thumb should always be interpreted in light of reason. There's nothing reasonable about paralyzing yourself by entertaining random risks or possibilities for which there is no justification. That's as silly as the idea that science is about doubt as a matter of method. It isn't. You don't go around arbitrarily doubting things for no reason because you have somehow convinced yourself that such willful doubting produces knowledge. It doesn't. It produces an incurable skepticism that destroys science. Doubt is the effect of having learned something credible that conflicts with a prior belief. That doubt might prompt us to verify these conflicting bits of information in order to establish some kind of certainty.
Chesterton's Fence is a criticism of reformers, revolutionaries, and burn-it-all-down types who want to make changes without making an effort to understand why the thing they want to tear down is there in the first place, what purpose it is serving, and the consequences of doing so.
Responsible jurisprudence does this all the time. When judges are presented with a case that puts a law into question, they look at the origins of the law and make an effort to determine the costs of eliminating that law because the good of a lot of people may rely on that law being in place. This doesn't mean they don't change the law if some people would suffer as a result. It just means they are aware of why the law exists and what purpose it serves as well as the relative costs and benefits of doing so (principle of double effect). Naturally, as you have said, we do not have perfect knowledge, so obviously we can merely do the best we can. A person is not obligated to do the impossible.
CERN is an instrument to help us learn more about physics. Bringing it down would not help us make any change, and it would only hinder us from learning more about the truth of nature. You need a better example than that.