4 ms·

> Advances in chemistry were by far the primary driver Seems like a pretty biased view of recent progress, to be honest. One could come up with similar lists f

> Advances in chemistry were by far the primary driver Seems like a pretty biased view of recent progress, to be honest. One could come up with similar lists from any number of other areas (Physics - Nuclear Energy, Biology - DNA & biotech, Computer Science - The Internet, etc.)

laughinghan 7y ago
I'm not sure what your point is. As I explained, I am biased towards physics, if anything. And I acknowledged that each field has had societally impactful advances, I never claimed chemistry was the sole driver. Surely you're not arguing that physics, chemistry, and biology have all had exactly equally-sized impacts on society over the 20th century? What a surprising coincidence that would be! If you think one could come up with similar lists, by all means, please do. I actually did mention the impact of nuclear energy (I called it "the atomic age" to include nuclear weapons as well), but surely you wouldn't claim that has had as large an impact on society as petroleum alone, which powers most of our electricity, internal combustion engines that made modern trade and supply chains possible, and is the raw material for the hundreds of pieces of plastic in the very room you're sitting in?
- 0xBABAD00C 7y ago
  > As I explained, I am biased towards physics, if anything. It's one thing what you say you're biased towards, it's another thing what you're actually biased towards :) > I'm not sure what your point is. You're claiming that chemistry had by far the biggest impact, and at the very least your post does not substantiate that claim (and listing a few key results from field A does not logically prove that those results dominate over other fields B, C, D in terms of impact).
  - laughinghan 7y ago
    I did substantiate my claim, I just had no need to do so with a logical proof. Logical proof is an unnecessarily (in fact, illogically) high bar to demand from a Hacker News comment. All I needed to substantiate my claim was convincing examples of results from field A whose impact, added together, most people would agree is more than the combined impact of field B in the 20th century. The fact that the person I was replying to then agreed with me is strong evidence I succeeded. So is the fact that, of the people who read my comment, 19 more of them upvoted it than downvoted it. Good luck trying to convince people that someone is wrong not by providing convincing examples or reasoning against their conclusion, but merely by pointing out that their reasoning, though convincing, didn't amount to a logical proof. Good luck believing, and acting on, solely information for which you have found a logical proof. (Ironically, I mentioned my minor in undergrad was physics, but my major was pure math, so I used to live and breathe logical proofs, and I still love them. But acting like they're the only kind of argument worth making is pure foolishness.)

laughinghan 7y ago

I'm not sure what your point is. As I explained, I am biased towards physics, if anything. And I acknowledged that each field has had societally impactful advances, I never claimed chemistry was the sole driver. Surely you're not arguing that physics, chemistry, and biology have all had exactly equally-sized impacts on society over the 20th century? What a surprising coincidence that would be! If you think one could come up with similar lists, by all means, please do. I actually did mention the impact of nuclear energy (I called it "the atomic age" to include nuclear weapons as well), but surely you wouldn't claim that has had as large an impact on society as petroleum alone, which powers most of our electricity, internal combustion engines that made modern trade and supply chains possible, and is the raw material for the hundreds of pieces of plastic in the very room you're sitting in?

0xBABAD00C 7y ago
> As I explained, I am biased towards physics, if anything. It's one thing what you say you're biased towards, it's another thing what you're actually biased towards :) > I'm not sure what your point is. You're claiming that chemistry had by far the biggest impact, and at the very least your post does not substantiate that claim (and listing a few key results from field A does not logically prove that those results dominate over other fields B, C, D in terms of impact).
- laughinghan 7y ago
  I did substantiate my claim, I just had no need to do so with a logical proof. Logical proof is an unnecessarily (in fact, illogically) high bar to demand from a Hacker News comment. All I needed to substantiate my claim was convincing examples of results from field A whose impact, added together, most people would agree is more than the combined impact of field B in the 20th century. The fact that the person I was replying to then agreed with me is strong evidence I succeeded. So is the fact that, of the people who read my comment, 19 more of them upvoted it than downvoted it. Good luck trying to convince people that someone is wrong not by providing convincing examples or reasoning against their conclusion, but merely by pointing out that their reasoning, though convincing, didn't amount to a logical proof. Good luck believing, and acting on, solely information for which you have found a logical proof. (Ironically, I mentioned my minor in undergrad was physics, but my major was pure math, so I used to live and breathe logical proofs, and I still love them. But acting like they're the only kind of argument worth making is pure foolishness.)