3 ms·

> We must first understand the reality of a problem before we can begin to address it. I fundamentally disagree with this statement. But then, I'm just an engi

> We must first understand the reality of a problem before we can begin to address it. I fundamentally disagree with this statement. But then, I'm just an engineer, not a real scientist.

sixstringtheory 10y ago
What kind of engineer are you? One of the types that must gain a license to practice? Regardless, I'm interested to hear elaboration on how you could fundamentally disagree that engineers must achieve a rigorous consensus on the facts before e.g. landing a rocket booster on a moving target in an ocean, after propelling to low earth orbit.
- metaphorm 10y ago
  I'm a software engineer. Rigorous consensus on the facts is a completely different statement and objective than what you originally mentioned, which was "understand the reality of a problem". you're moving your target here and that discredits your argument. We can certainly (and are required to) have a rigorous consensus on the facts in order to do good engineering (yes, even software engineering). That doesn't mean we must "understand the reality of the problem". I can fix a bug in my code without understanding the theory of computation. I do know a lot about the theory of computation, but it just doesn't come up in my day to day problem solving. That's the point. The facts that are required to begin solving a problem are a very restricted sub-domain of the set of all possible facts that pertain to the problem, and are relatively independent of also having an understanding of the fundamental theories underlying the domain.
  - sixstringtheory 10y ago
    I feel obliged to respond to your accusation that I'm moving the goalposts, which I don't believe I've done. I meant "understanding the reality of a problem" insofar as that understanding can be achieved by more than just the internals of one person's mind by achieving "a rigorous consensus on the facts" from a group/team/society. If the team of engineers at SpaceX responsible for landing that rocket booster had a mixture of people who 1) worked with the known facts governing physics, and 2) believed that chariots are pulling the sun across the sky, or that the concept of gravity is a poor approximation of the spiritual energy binding all things, then I doubt they would have gotten close to success. They would have fundamental disagreement on the "reality of the problem" (need to land an object on a floating target) because they'd have no consensus on the facts of the constraints involved (gravity, thermo/aerodynamics, degrees of freedom, confidence intervals, probably a bunch more I can't imagine). Those constraints constitute the reality of the problem. More to your point of fixing bugs, just because you don't understand every tenet of theories of computation, does not mean that you can substitute whatever explanations you imagine for how computers work and they become truth in reality.
    - metaphorm 10y ago
      > insofar as that understanding can be achieved by more than just the internals of one person's mind ok, but let's back up a bit and remember what kind of thing we're discussing. we're discussing the unusual mental states that some people experience which causes them some form of suffering. a psychiatrist might call it schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or psychosis. the subject in question is very much about the internals of one person's mind. if you're trying to argue that rocket engineering and mental health services are equivalent I think you've got a lot of explaining to do. if, on the other hand, you acknowledge that mental health services are not the same kind of thing as rocket engineering, then maybe we have some grounds to find agreement on. I wouldn't ask a shaman to have anything to do with building rockets. I might ask a shaman to have something to do with mental health services though. Do you see the distinction?

> We must first understand the reality of a problem before we can begin to address it. I fundamentally disagree with this statement. But then, I'm just an engineer, not a real scientist.

sixstringtheory 10y ago

What kind of engineer are you? One of the types that must gain a license to practice? Regardless, I'm interested to hear elaboration on how you could fundamentally disagree that engineers must achieve a rigorous consensus on the facts before e.g. landing a rocket booster on a moving target in an ocean, after propelling to low earth orbit.

metaphorm 10y ago
I'm a software engineer. Rigorous consensus on the facts is a completely different statement and objective than what you originally mentioned, which was "understand the reality of a problem". you're moving your target here and that discredits your argument. We can certainly (and are required to) have a rigorous consensus on the facts in order to do good engineering (yes, even software engineering). That doesn't mean we must "understand the reality of the problem". I can fix a bug in my code without understanding the theory of computation. I do know a lot about the theory of computation, but it just doesn't come up in my day to day problem solving. That's the point. The facts that are required to begin solving a problem are a very restricted sub-domain of the set of all possible facts that pertain to the problem, and are relatively independent of also having an understanding of the fundamental theories underlying the domain.
- sixstringtheory 10y ago
  I feel obliged to respond to your accusation that I'm moving the goalposts, which I don't believe I've done. I meant "understanding the reality of a problem" insofar as that understanding can be achieved by more than just the internals of one person's mind by achieving "a rigorous consensus on the facts" from a group/team/society. If the team of engineers at SpaceX responsible for landing that rocket booster had a mixture of people who 1) worked with the known facts governing physics, and 2) believed that chariots are pulling the sun across the sky, or that the concept of gravity is a poor approximation of the spiritual energy binding all things, then I doubt they would have gotten close to success. They would have fundamental disagreement on the "reality of the problem" (need to land an object on a floating target) because they'd have no consensus on the facts of the constraints involved (gravity, thermo/aerodynamics, degrees of freedom, confidence intervals, probably a bunch more I can't imagine). Those constraints constitute the reality of the problem. More to your point of fixing bugs, just because you don't understand every tenet of theories of computation, does not mean that you can substitute whatever explanations you imagine for how computers work and they become truth in reality.
  - metaphorm 10y ago
    > insofar as that understanding can be achieved by more than just the internals of one person's mind ok, but let's back up a bit and remember what kind of thing we're discussing. we're discussing the unusual mental states that some people experience which causes them some form of suffering. a psychiatrist might call it schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or psychosis. the subject in question is very much about the internals of one person's mind. if you're trying to argue that rocket engineering and mental health services are equivalent I think you've got a lot of explaining to do. if, on the other hand, you acknowledge that mental health services are not the same kind of thing as rocket engineering, then maybe we have some grounds to find agreement on. I wouldn't ask a shaman to have anything to do with building rockets. I might ask a shaman to have something to do with mental health services though. Do you see the distinction?