8 ms·

The world is not an engineering problem

70 points by jajag 8y ago

chrispeel 8y ago
The idea here is something we've lost from our thinking, one of those virtues Deirdre McCloskey writes about, the idea of faith, that there are things we have to take as felt not as demonstrated by science. Even if we don't understand everything scientifically now, even some things that we feel, does not mean that we cannot try to do so in the future. I accept faith only as a step towards scientific understanding.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- nateabele 8y ago
  My favorite part of Antifragile was where the author defines the 'Soviet-Harvard delusion' as "the unscientific overestimation of the reach of scientific knowledge". Let us know when you find formal proofs for human values or systems of morality. That's almost certainly Nobel Prize-worthy.
  - thfuran 8y ago
    Science isn't about formal proofs
    - comonad-colaboy 8y ago
      Science is about verifiable proofs (verifiable within reasonable time limits) which somewhat means the same thing as formal proofs in the grand scheme of things. Correct me if I am wrong Edit: forgot to put in time limits
      - TeMPOraL 8y ago
        You're wrong. Science is about building and refining models (theories) in order to make them match observable reality as close as possible, in order to use those models to predict what happens in the future - both by itself, and in consequence of us poking stuff. That's what it means to know "how something works". Engineering takes these models and adds a "what's the best way to poke things to achieve a desired outcome?" aspect. Formal proofs are for mathematicians. Mathematics is a purely abstract invention and operates in its own universe, where absolute formal proofs are possible.
        natalyarostova 8y ago
        Mathematics is no different. Our brains are simply computers that verify that the system evaluates based on it's rule system. In fact, you can bootstrap an empirical verification of any mathematical proof holding if sufficient human brain-computes evaluate it, and determine it holds.
      - ravitation 8y ago
        "Science", in the broadest sense, is only concerned with the systematic study of the physical and natural world through observation and experimentation, with the goal of explanation and predictability. To that end, science is reliant of empirical evidence, not formal proofs. The various disciplines that generally rely on "formal proofs" are referred to as "formal sciences" (logic, mathematics, statistics, etc.), but are technically not actual "sciences" since they are fundamentally abstract (as opposed to how we defined science above) - which is why they are generally concerned with formal proofs and not empirical evidence. Of course the formal sciences frequently provide the natural sciences and social sciences with ways to describe the physical/natural world and the social world, respectively.
      - tathougies 8y ago
        Formal proof typically refers to a branch of mathematics / philosophy concerned with the symbolic manipulation of formal systems in order to prove axioms about representations of real world objects. For example, a system like Coq (https://coq.inria.fr/ https://coq.inria.fr/) is concerned with formal proofs, but is not really a foundation for most of science.
      - swagasaurus-rex 8y ago
        You're getting a lot of flak for conflating verifiability with formal proofs. In your defense, science appears to follow formality, though we run into often run into holes in our theory when a confounding number of variables are in play. Me, personally, I don't know what that difference really is. Science is science because it works. If it didn't work, it wouldn't be science. Mathematics can and will find ways to apply itself to the real world, no matter how approximately, as long as that difference matters to somebody.
  - jm__87 8y ago
    I mean, it seems a bit obvious to me that human values and morality are going to be reflections of fundamental human drives (i.e. to survive and procreate). The cultural, legal and economic environment can change a lot of variables as to how we achieve these two goals, as can our perception of the environment which we live in, but at the end of the day people are still going to be acting in accordance with their evoluationarily programmed drives within the context of their environment. I don't see how we could do any differently.
pmarreck 8y ago
Public policy should only be based on objective truths and not evidenceless beliefs or feelings. It's one thing to be for or against marijuana usage; it's another to still have a law on the books banning its use and sale when a growing plethora of science says it's far safer than substances already legalized and regulated (such as alcohol) and actually therapeutic in some cases (such as cancer). It's one thing to be against pornography being freely available on the Internet personally; it's another when scientific data (hypothetically) indicates that pre-adolescent exposure to pornography incurs long-term and tangible behavioral harms, BUT does not seem to harm adults nor their marriages. "Appeal to disgust" is a fallacy for a reason, and laws should be rational.
- User23 8y ago
  Parent is a nice statement of the position the author opposes. It has the benefit of being irrefutable too by not admitting the premises necessary to do so.
- MereInterest 8y ago
  Taking that argument to its logical conclusion, there should be no public policy whatsoever. Every single policy has at its roots an evidenceless belief. As an extreme example, "Seat belts save lives" is an objective truth, but "Saving lives is a good thing" is an evidenceless belief. That is it believed by the vast majority of the human race in no way constitutes evidence. Evidenceless beliefs are what need to dictate the goals of policy, because there is no other way to decide on a goal. Once the goal has been decided, objective truths must be what determine the best way to reach that goal.
  - pmarreck 8y ago
    Good point technically but I think some subjective valuations are widespread enough to be able to be considered objective, such as "alive/animate things are better than dead/inanimate things", and "joy is superior to pain", and "murdering is bad". And regarding pain/pleasure, you can always do what doctors do and ask patients to assign the intensity a number from 1-10, which is basically a hack that takes a qualitative subjective valuation into the quantitative objective world where it can then be reasoned about. We already do this in a quite literal way with money, the price of things follows the subjective valuation of those things, so for example if a bit of paint on canvas in a frame which would otherwise only be worth $40 is the Mona Lisa, then it is suddenly (and seemingly magically) worth $800 million. You could use this to evaluate joy and harm as well, in the form "what is the maximum amount of money you would spend to be able to eliminate this harm or to experience this joy?"
smacktoward 8y ago
I wrote something similar from the opposite end of the ideological spectrum a few years back: https://jasonlefkowitz.net/2014/01/against-line-chart-liberalism/ https://jasonlefkowitz.net/2014/01/against-line-chart-libera... One reason why I disagree with [technocracy] is because of a core assumption that is embedded deep within it, namely that public policy is at root a values-neutral project. In this worldview, there is an objective Good that we all strive towards, and our progress as a society can be measured by the velocity towards which we approach that objective Good. We can determine this velocity by taking measurements — by gathering Data. These data will then tell us if we are on or off course, in much the same way that star sightings can do for a mariner lost at sea. This works for the mariner, because the stars are objective. It is not a matter of opinion where in the sky the North Star is. But “good,” in terms of public policy, is most definitely not objective. My definition of what is Good is informed by my background, my experiences, my ideology; my values. And your definition of what is Good is informed by yours. Your North Star, in other words, is in a different place than mine is — which makes trying to navigate by taking sightings of it a perilous proposition.
- garmaine 8y ago
  I think we disagree that laws are suppose to be a mechanism for achieving “good.”
dagasgasgasg 8y ago
Kings have ever considered their own power as an end to itself, even if the small people have to suffer. They probably made arguments very alike to this one to justify the wars fought over another king's acres. And some of the small people bought into it too. I don't want to live in that world, though. I think this as a case for the Brexit position only works if you can demonstrate that the people will in fact be materially better off (not in money but in well-being, which can factor in feelings like the one the author speaks about) after Brexit. That's a hard thing to demonstrate scientifically, since you can't run an experiment, but that's argumentative stance you'd need to take to convince me.
stevew20 8y ago
Is this article supposed to be satirical? I have trouble believing people being paid to write can think this way.
afpx 8y ago
This word soup reads like it was generated by the Postmodernism Paper Generator [1]. What am I supposed to take away from this? Is there a TL;DR version? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism_Generator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism_Generator
- subjectsigma 8y ago
  "The world is not an engineering problem." Pretty clear if you ask me. What if we invented some gene therapy that could make everyone instantly and painlessly racially ambiguous? All looking like Simpsons characters or something. We could just poof and everyone would be the same! It would go so far towards eliminating racism and prejudice, which is unarguably a good goal. Some questions, though: 1. Would this really enrich human experience? Would it be "right"? 2. If someone didn't want the treatment would it be right to force them to accept it, even though it might end racism? 3. Would this actually end prejudice? 4. Could this technology ever exist? The authors answers would be: "Nope", "Definitely not", "Almost certainly no", and "If it couldn't or we have no plans to make it, why even discuss it?" Now think about it like this: 1. Will Facebook having "better algorithms" end fake news? 2. Will Google and Apple adding fancy new apps end smartphone addiction? 3. Will cute little notes from Discord in their app end our huge lack of participation in democracy? The author would say no to all of them, and he's right.
  - afpx 8y ago
    Hasn't this line of questioning been well-examined, though? It seems like the author is just re-inventing Greek mythology. Does anyone actually believe that the world is an engineering problem? It seems like the author is committing several rhetorical fallacies just to seem intellectual and bait people.
cousin_it 8y ago
Cause that's where the truth comes from ladies and gentlemen, the gut.
hcg 8y ago
I was hoping this would be much a critique of the tendency of people to place too much faith in technology, to ignore the human element of solutions, and (among SV types especially) to prize their own goals above all else. To try and come up with purely technical solutions to the problems of society, but to do so by trying to create an environment which lets their own capitalist goals succeed while tossing scraps to the rest. Cause even when it's well meaning, I still can't stand it. Their (our I suppose) own conviction they they are right fuels a randian like commitment to individualism. But then they want to appear woke and smart and so they start talking about basic income and how it's fine to have half the population just sort of subsisting. Or we'll fix democracy with smartphones and blockchain. Also the tendency towards not just being temporarily embarrassed millionaires, but temporarily embarrassed tech billionaires.
comonad-colaboy 8y ago
"The world is not an engineering problem" says the overprivileged pompous first-worlder who needs a dose of harsh reality every now and then. Send his ass to a destitute third-world country where food and sanitation is scarce, and then let's see how his "feelings" matter
Nasrudith 8y ago
The Brexit rhetoric even though it probably was meant in abstract terms seemed rather romanticist which I see as a danger in itself - dogmatically clinging to abstract ideas because of feelings regardless of outcomes. One thing that I feel is always missed in discussions of consequentialism are second order effects which are what make decisions untenable. While the classic "murder a stranger for organs" might technically save more lives it causes all sorts of nasty ripple effects - people would rightfully become more paranoid or take measures to ensure uselessness of their organs after death for sheer strategic spite. Taking a stand for principles is still possible in that framework - the goal being to make bad actions more expensive or good actions cheaper. Still there are certainly good points about needing to choose how one wants to shape society while setting goals - as well as recognizing that society doesn't go as planned or projected and it changes in response to your actions.
- dvtrn 8y ago
  probably was meant in abstract terms seemed rather romanticist which I see as a danger in itself - dogmatically clinging to abstract ideas because of feelings regardless of outcomes. Found myself in a perplexing discussion not long ago that-after a lot of words that seemed to operate similarly to what you're describing here. The topic was over banning plastic bags versus something with more politically loaded outcomes like Brexit, though. The argument the other person brought up was to equivocate banning plastic bags with banning plastic straws and how this constituted a real harm to the disabled community and those who may have a valid need for straws--forcing me to ask if a better outcome for someone with a physical impairment would be to promote durable, fabric bags that are less like to suffer to sudden structural failure (overfilling a plastic bag that rips open unexpectedly), and where the logical limit was in comparing the harm of removing plastic straws and removing plastic bags. They clung to the comparison that banning bags was equivalent to robbing the physically disabled from needed resources but couldn't really articulate any position beyond that emotional appeal to a community who-I conceded-should be considered more than they probably are. Comparing bags to straws on the grounds presented didn't feel like it was very outcome oriented, though. It's an endlessly interesting phenomenon of thought to watch take place in real time.
wazoox 8y ago
Yeah, democracy isn't "rule by those who know". That's our problem, nowadays, and why people by the millions go vote for Trump, Brexit, Bolsonaro, etc. Because of the smug "know-it-all".
imgabe 8y ago
I don't see an alternative offered here. The argument seems to be "don't do things just because you think they'll produce the best result". Which...makes no sense? If this advice is followed, we would have to knowingly choose to do something that we expect to be worse than another option we're considering. What do we hope to gain from that?
TeMPOraL 8y ago
Like hell it isn't. At the risk of going "no true scottsman", I hate this kind of anti-intellectual nonsense. The methods of science, engineering and rational reasoning are the best tools we have for solving world problems. They were literally invented for it. They're reified applied reasoning. You eschew them at your own peril. Now of course to solve problems involving humans, you have to factor in the human element - the complexity of our individual emotions, and of the societal interplay. This is where a lot of attempts at solving problems fail, and it's appropriate to criticize that. But that doesn't give you a free pass to go by your gut in contexts our monkey brains have never experienced in the past. This means we need to double-down and carefully, rationally, find out what works and what doesn't.
- Benjammer 8y ago
  >This is where a lot of attempts at solving problems fail I think this is where a lot of attempts at defining problems fail. I don't think this has any impact on the validity of the scientific method of problem solving, once you've clearly defined your problem.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    That too. Not much good comes from efficiently "solving" what turns out to not be the real problem. You have to start factoring in the human element at the very top, at the level of problem discovery and definition.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  >The methods of science, engineering and rational reasoning are the best tools we have for solving world problems. How do you feel about the fact that was is rational and irrational (indeed our whole meta-rational basis) has changed in time according not to new discoveries but merely the movement of the cultural zeitgeist[0]? What about the differences between instrumental reason (and rationality), technological rationality in which modern technology changes what we see as rational (see Marcuse) and rationality of ends, rather than just the means? My point is that we can't simply say "rationality" as if it's a fixed tool we can use so easily, at least, we can't use it without also considering the current ideological context in which we are using it. Surely you admit there are different rationalities, such as economic rationality, which would seem to eschew any human factor that does not count towards profit efficiency? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_of_Reason_(Horkheimer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_of_Reason_(Horkheimer)
ajuc 8y ago
> For my part, I prefer things a little messy because not only are the solutions so often dependent on coercion but they also require that the ordinary citizen's faith and feelings are denied. Maximising utility seems a good thing but it is not the main reason why people do things like set up business, create charities, build village halls, paint, sing, create or innovate. Technocracy treats the world as an engineering problem when it's an unfolding story, explorers in a dense jungle not white-coated scientists in a laboratory. There's a very famous fragment of Polish romantic ballad "Romantyczność" by Adam Mickiewicz: Feeling and faith stronger speaks to me, than the eye and the glass of a wise man. It was written in 1821 in occupied Poland, and (together with other similar literature) was responsible for creating nationalist romantic movement that caused several failed uprisings, countless deaths, and whole generations of educated patriots being forced to migrate abroad escaping repressions. When Poland got independent in 1918 (mostly thanks to a good luck and WW1, just like other countries in the region) - this attitude claimed the success ("if not for failed uprisings we wouldn't be here"), and people believed it. Failed uprisings are celebrated to this day, and a few rational generals who wanted to prevent the useless massacre and were hanged because of that - are still considered traitors. Then it caused governments of interwar Poland to pursue unrealistic and opportunistic strategy that resulted in 1/6th of the population and 1/7th of the territory being lost in WW2 despite supposedly being on the winning side. But it sure felt nice to be brave and be the "first to fight". People are still boasting "Poland - first to fight" like it's a good thing to be stupid and die for no reason. This national romanticism is still very much defining the public debate in Poland together with the only mainstream alternative - positivism and pragmatism. And romanticism is still winning - 200 years later. We've only got +-25 years of pragmatism after 1989, but it's over now. It's why populists can win elections - because people want to ignore reality and stop analyzing it. "Just do what feels right, it will be OK for sure." "Winning trade wars is so easy". Everything is easy if you ignore reality because it's too complex. It's a very harmful attitude. Don't let it take over your culture, it's very hard to get back to the enlightenment once you leave it behind.
vectorEQ 8y ago
to engineers it is. how the hell are they going to make a living otherwise? something being a problem of any type is just an opinion anyway... :D

70 points by jajag 8y ago

The idea here is something we've lost from our thinking, one of those virtues Deirdre McCloskey writes about, the idea of faith, that there are things we have to take as felt not as demonstrated by science. Even if we don't understand everything scientifically now, even some things that we feel, does not mean that we cannot try to do so in the future. I accept faith only as a step towards scientific understanding.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
nateabele 8y ago
My favorite part of Antifragile was where the author defines the 'Soviet-Harvard delusion' as "the unscientific overestimation of the reach of scientific knowledge". Let us know when you find formal proofs for human values or systems of morality. That's almost certainly Nobel Prize-worthy.
- thfuran 8y ago
  Science isn't about formal proofs
  - comonad-colaboy 8y ago
    Science is about verifiable proofs (verifiable within reasonable time limits) which somewhat means the same thing as formal proofs in the grand scheme of things. Correct me if I am wrong Edit: forgot to put in time limits
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      You're wrong. Science is about building and refining models (theories) in order to make them match observable reality as close as possible, in order to use those models to predict what happens in the future - both by itself, and in consequence of us poking stuff. That's what it means to know "how something works". Engineering takes these models and adds a "what's the best way to poke things to achieve a desired outcome?" aspect. Formal proofs are for mathematicians. Mathematics is a purely abstract invention and operates in its own universe, where absolute formal proofs are possible.
      - natalyarostova 8y ago
        Mathematics is no different. Our brains are simply computers that verify that the system evaluates based on it's rule system. In fact, you can bootstrap an empirical verification of any mathematical proof holding if sufficient human brain-computes evaluate it, and determine it holds.
    - ravitation 8y ago
      "Science", in the broadest sense, is only concerned with the systematic study of the physical and natural world through observation and experimentation, with the goal of explanation and predictability. To that end, science is reliant of empirical evidence, not formal proofs. The various disciplines that generally rely on "formal proofs" are referred to as "formal sciences" (logic, mathematics, statistics, etc.), but are technically not actual "sciences" since they are fundamentally abstract (as opposed to how we defined science above) - which is why they are generally concerned with formal proofs and not empirical evidence. Of course the formal sciences frequently provide the natural sciences and social sciences with ways to describe the physical/natural world and the social world, respectively.
    - tathougies 8y ago
      Formal proof typically refers to a branch of mathematics / philosophy concerned with the symbolic manipulation of formal systems in order to prove axioms about representations of real world objects. For example, a system like Coq (https://coq.inria.fr/ https://coq.inria.fr/) is concerned with formal proofs, but is not really a foundation for most of science.
    - swagasaurus-rex 8y ago
      You're getting a lot of flak for conflating verifiability with formal proofs. In your defense, science appears to follow formality, though we run into often run into holes in our theory when a confounding number of variables are in play. Me, personally, I don't know what that difference really is. Science is science because it works. If it didn't work, it wouldn't be science. Mathematics can and will find ways to apply itself to the real world, no matter how approximately, as long as that difference matters to somebody.
- jm__87 8y ago
  I mean, it seems a bit obvious to me that human values and morality are going to be reflections of fundamental human drives (i.e. to survive and procreate). The cultural, legal and economic environment can change a lot of variables as to how we achieve these two goals, as can our perception of the environment which we live in, but at the end of the day people are still going to be acting in accordance with their evoluationarily programmed drives within the context of their environment. I don't see how we could do any differently.

pmarreck 8y ago

Public policy should only be based on objective truths and not evidenceless beliefs or feelings. It's one thing to be for or against marijuana usage; it's another to still have a law on the books banning its use and sale when a growing plethora of science says it's far safer than substances already legalized and regulated (such as alcohol) and actually therapeutic in some cases (such as cancer). It's one thing to be against pornography being freely available on the Internet personally; it's another when scientific data (hypothetically) indicates that pre-adolescent exposure to pornography incurs long-term and tangible behavioral harms, BUT does not seem to harm adults nor their marriages. "Appeal to disgust" is a fallacy for a reason, and laws should be rational.

User23 8y ago
Parent is a nice statement of the position the author opposes. It has the benefit of being irrefutable too by not admitting the premises necessary to do so.
MereInterest 8y ago
Taking that argument to its logical conclusion, there should be no public policy whatsoever. Every single policy has at its roots an evidenceless belief. As an extreme example, "Seat belts save lives" is an objective truth, but "Saving lives is a good thing" is an evidenceless belief. That is it believed by the vast majority of the human race in no way constitutes evidence. Evidenceless beliefs are what need to dictate the goals of policy, because there is no other way to decide on a goal. Once the goal has been decided, objective truths must be what determine the best way to reach that goal.
- pmarreck 8y ago
  Good point technically but I think some subjective valuations are widespread enough to be able to be considered objective, such as "alive/animate things are better than dead/inanimate things", and "joy is superior to pain", and "murdering is bad". And regarding pain/pleasure, you can always do what doctors do and ask patients to assign the intensity a number from 1-10, which is basically a hack that takes a qualitative subjective valuation into the quantitative objective world where it can then be reasoned about. We already do this in a quite literal way with money, the price of things follows the subjective valuation of those things, so for example if a bit of paint on canvas in a frame which would otherwise only be worth $40 is the Mona Lisa, then it is suddenly (and seemingly magically) worth $800 million. You could use this to evaluate joy and harm as well, in the form "what is the maximum amount of money you would spend to be able to eliminate this harm or to experience this joy?"

smacktoward 8y ago

I wrote something similar from the opposite end of the ideological spectrum a few years back: https://jasonlefkowitz.net/2014/01/against-line-chart-liberalism/ https://jasonlefkowitz.net/2014/01/against-line-chart-libera... One reason why I disagree with [technocracy] is because of a core assumption that is embedded deep within it, namely that public policy is at root a values-neutral project. In this worldview, there is an objective Good that we all strive towards, and our progress as a society can be measured by the velocity towards which we approach that objective Good. We can determine this velocity by taking measurements — by gathering Data. These data will then tell us if we are on or off course, in much the same way that star sightings can do for a mariner lost at sea. This works for the mariner, because the stars are objective. It is not a matter of opinion where in the sky the North Star is. But “good,” in terms of public policy, is most definitely not objective. My definition of what is Good is informed by my background, my experiences, my ideology; my values. And your definition of what is Good is informed by yours. Your North Star, in other words, is in a different place than mine is — which makes trying to navigate by taking sightings of it a perilous proposition.

garmaine 8y ago
I think we disagree that laws are suppose to be a mechanism for achieving “good.”

dagasgasgasg 8y ago

Kings have ever considered their own power as an end to itself, even if the small people have to suffer. They probably made arguments very alike to this one to justify the wars fought over another king's acres. And some of the small people bought into it too. I don't want to live in that world, though. I think this as a case for the Brexit position only works if you can demonstrate that the people will in fact be materially better off (not in money but in well-being, which can factor in feelings like the one the author speaks about) after Brexit. That's a hard thing to demonstrate scientifically, since you can't run an experiment, but that's argumentative stance you'd need to take to convince me.

stevew20 8y ago

Is this article supposed to be satirical? I have trouble believing people being paid to write can think this way.

afpx 8y ago

This word soup reads like it was generated by the Postmodernism Paper Generator [1]. What am I supposed to take away from this? Is there a TL;DR version? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism_Generator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism_Generator

subjectsigma 8y ago
"The world is not an engineering problem." Pretty clear if you ask me. What if we invented some gene therapy that could make everyone instantly and painlessly racially ambiguous? All looking like Simpsons characters or something. We could just poof and everyone would be the same! It would go so far towards eliminating racism and prejudice, which is unarguably a good goal. Some questions, though: 1. Would this really enrich human experience? Would it be "right"? 2. If someone didn't want the treatment would it be right to force them to accept it, even though it might end racism? 3. Would this actually end prejudice? 4. Could this technology ever exist? The authors answers would be: "Nope", "Definitely not", "Almost certainly no", and "If it couldn't or we have no plans to make it, why even discuss it?" Now think about it like this: 1. Will Facebook having "better algorithms" end fake news? 2. Will Google and Apple adding fancy new apps end smartphone addiction? 3. Will cute little notes from Discord in their app end our huge lack of participation in democracy? The author would say no to all of them, and he's right.
- afpx 8y ago
  Hasn't this line of questioning been well-examined, though? It seems like the author is just re-inventing Greek mythology. Does anyone actually believe that the world is an engineering problem? It seems like the author is committing several rhetorical fallacies just to seem intellectual and bait people.

cousin_it 8y ago

Cause that's where the truth comes from ladies and gentlemen, the gut.

hcg 8y ago

I was hoping this would be much a critique of the tendency of people to place too much faith in technology, to ignore the human element of solutions, and (among SV types especially) to prize their own goals above all else. To try and come up with purely technical solutions to the problems of society, but to do so by trying to create an environment which lets their own capitalist goals succeed while tossing scraps to the rest. Cause even when it's well meaning, I still can't stand it. Their (our I suppose) own conviction they they are right fuels a randian like commitment to individualism. But then they want to appear woke and smart and so they start talking about basic income and how it's fine to have half the population just sort of subsisting. Or we'll fix democracy with smartphones and blockchain. Also the tendency towards not just being temporarily embarrassed millionaires, but temporarily embarrassed tech billionaires.

comonad-colaboy 8y ago

"The world is not an engineering problem" says the overprivileged pompous first-worlder who needs a dose of harsh reality every now and then. Send his ass to a destitute third-world country where food and sanitation is scarce, and then let's see how his "feelings" matter

Nasrudith 8y ago

The Brexit rhetoric even though it probably was meant in abstract terms seemed rather romanticist which I see as a danger in itself - dogmatically clinging to abstract ideas because of feelings regardless of outcomes. One thing that I feel is always missed in discussions of consequentialism are second order effects which are what make decisions untenable. While the classic "murder a stranger for organs" might technically save more lives it causes all sorts of nasty ripple effects - people would rightfully become more paranoid or take measures to ensure uselessness of their organs after death for sheer strategic spite. Taking a stand for principles is still possible in that framework - the goal being to make bad actions more expensive or good actions cheaper. Still there are certainly good points about needing to choose how one wants to shape society while setting goals - as well as recognizing that society doesn't go as planned or projected and it changes in response to your actions.

dvtrn 8y ago
probably was meant in abstract terms seemed rather romanticist which I see as a danger in itself - dogmatically clinging to abstract ideas because of feelings regardless of outcomes. Found myself in a perplexing discussion not long ago that-after a lot of words that seemed to operate similarly to what you're describing here. The topic was over banning plastic bags versus something with more politically loaded outcomes like Brexit, though. The argument the other person brought up was to equivocate banning plastic bags with banning plastic straws and how this constituted a real harm to the disabled community and those who may have a valid need for straws--forcing me to ask if a better outcome for someone with a physical impairment would be to promote durable, fabric bags that are less like to suffer to sudden structural failure (overfilling a plastic bag that rips open unexpectedly), and where the logical limit was in comparing the harm of removing plastic straws and removing plastic bags. They clung to the comparison that banning bags was equivalent to robbing the physically disabled from needed resources but couldn't really articulate any position beyond that emotional appeal to a community who-I conceded-should be considered more than they probably are. Comparing bags to straws on the grounds presented didn't feel like it was very outcome oriented, though. It's an endlessly interesting phenomenon of thought to watch take place in real time.

wazoox 8y ago

Yeah, democracy isn't "rule by those who know". That's our problem, nowadays, and why people by the millions go vote for Trump, Brexit, Bolsonaro, etc. Because of the smug "know-it-all".

imgabe 8y ago

I don't see an alternative offered here. The argument seems to be "don't do things just because you think they'll produce the best result". Which...makes no sense? If this advice is followed, we would have to knowingly choose to do something that we expect to be worse than another option we're considering. What do we hope to gain from that?

TeMPOraL 8y ago

Like hell it isn't. At the risk of going "no true scottsman", I hate this kind of anti-intellectual nonsense. The methods of science, engineering and rational reasoning are the best tools we have for solving world problems. They were literally invented for it. They're reified applied reasoning. You eschew them at your own peril. Now of course to solve problems involving humans, you have to factor in the human element - the complexity of our individual emotions, and of the societal interplay. This is where a lot of attempts at solving problems fail, and it's appropriate to criticize that. But that doesn't give you a free pass to go by your gut in contexts our monkey brains have never experienced in the past. This means we need to double-down and carefully, rationally, find out what works and what doesn't.

Benjammer 8y ago
>This is where a lot of attempts at solving problems fail I think this is where a lot of attempts at defining problems fail. I don't think this has any impact on the validity of the scientific method of problem solving, once you've clearly defined your problem.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  That too. Not much good comes from efficiently "solving" what turns out to not be the real problem. You have to start factoring in the human element at the very top, at the level of problem discovery and definition.
claudiawerner 8y ago
>The methods of science, engineering and rational reasoning are the best tools we have for solving world problems. How do you feel about the fact that was is rational and irrational (indeed our whole meta-rational basis) has changed in time according not to new discoveries but merely the movement of the cultural zeitgeist[0]? What about the differences between instrumental reason (and rationality), technological rationality in which modern technology changes what we see as rational (see Marcuse) and rationality of ends, rather than just the means? My point is that we can't simply say "rationality" as if it's a fixed tool we can use so easily, at least, we can't use it without also considering the current ideological context in which we are using it. Surely you admit there are different rationalities, such as economic rationality, which would seem to eschew any human factor that does not count towards profit efficiency? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_of_Reason_(Horkheimer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_of_Reason_(Horkheimer)

ajuc 8y ago

> For my part, I prefer things a little messy because not only are the solutions so often dependent on coercion but they also require that the ordinary citizen's faith and feelings are denied. Maximising utility seems a good thing but it is not the main reason why people do things like set up business, create charities, build village halls, paint, sing, create or innovate. Technocracy treats the world as an engineering problem when it's an unfolding story, explorers in a dense jungle not white-coated scientists in a laboratory. There's a very famous fragment of Polish romantic ballad "Romantyczność" by Adam Mickiewicz: Feeling and faith stronger speaks to me, than the eye and the glass of a wise man. It was written in 1821 in occupied Poland, and (together with other similar literature) was responsible for creating nationalist romantic movement that caused several failed uprisings, countless deaths, and whole generations of educated patriots being forced to migrate abroad escaping repressions. When Poland got independent in 1918 (mostly thanks to a good luck and WW1, just like other countries in the region) - this attitude claimed the success ("if not for failed uprisings we wouldn't be here"), and people believed it. Failed uprisings are celebrated to this day, and a few rational generals who wanted to prevent the useless massacre and were hanged because of that - are still considered traitors. Then it caused governments of interwar Poland to pursue unrealistic and opportunistic strategy that resulted in 1/6th of the population and 1/7th of the territory being lost in WW2 despite supposedly being on the winning side. But it sure felt nice to be brave and be the "first to fight". People are still boasting "Poland - first to fight" like it's a good thing to be stupid and die for no reason. This national romanticism is still very much defining the public debate in Poland together with the only mainstream alternative - positivism and pragmatism. And romanticism is still winning - 200 years later. We've only got +-25 years of pragmatism after 1989, but it's over now. It's why populists can win elections - because people want to ignore reality and stop analyzing it. "Just do what feels right, it will be OK for sure." "Winning trade wars is so easy". Everything is easy if you ignore reality because it's too complex. It's a very harmful attitude. Don't let it take over your culture, it's very hard to get back to the enlightenment once you leave it behind.

vectorEQ 8y ago

to engineers it is. how the hell are they going to make a living otherwise? something being a problem of any type is just an opinion anyway... :D