Side note about survivorship bias (somewhat unrelated though):

People say "just because something is old doesn't mean it's good," usually in the context of criticizing traditions, conventions, or established norms. Also things like ancient beliefs and classical philosophy.

But the thing is, although it's true that being old or "ancient" doesn't make something better than things that are new, withstanding the tests of time for hundreds or thousands of years does indicate that something is at least effective or worth preserving. Obviously things that get disproven or replaced by new innovations don't fall into that category, so it's not the same thing as romanticizing the past (which is of course problematic).

It's not always the case of course, and I'm certainly not a traditionalist. But I find it an interesting example of how survivorship bias can actually be used to affirm a claim of worth or quality rather than negate it. It kinda flips the idea on its head.

The reason I thought of this is because I was reading dall'Agocchie's descriptions of single-sword guard positions, and he basically says "the names of these guards come to us from previous generations, and they work, so there's no need to change them."

I think it's kind of a long-winded way of saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

If anything, it's merely a counterpoint to avant-gard philosophy. Like, why deconstruct the principles and techniques of an art form if it works as a structured approach to producing good art, or to learning art forms?

It applies to crafts as well. Wood carving has evolved over time as technology develops, but if you strip it down to the very basics, the principles and techniques are the same as they've always been. Use this tool for flat surface, this on for round surfaces, this one for angled surfaces, etc.. Work with the grain. Sand from coarse grit to fine grit. These things don't change, and trying to deconstruct them would just result in a messy sculpture.