4 ms·

“I am not a tech expert” != “There’s no such thing as a tech expert”. Edited to add: all of science is beyond the comprehension of one person, but we wouldn’t

by hyko 6y ago

“I am not a tech expert” != “There’s no such thing as a tech expert”. Edited to add: all of science is beyond the comprehension of one person, but we wouldn’t say that scientists don’t exist anymore. I think the shock experienced in these kind of hearings has more to do with leaders and law makers being hopelessly out of touch with common technologies that are used by most people every day; it’s akin to them puzzling over how to operate a flushing toilet. They don’t need to interact with the world as other citizens do, because they have layers of abstraction shielding them from it. Not a good thing. The example of the B-2 Spirit is such a strange one, given the complete absence of civilian oversight to the programme. It was essentially built for military experts by engineering experts. Non-experts are expected to provide oversight in highly technical issues, but they should be working closely with advisors who have cutting edge domain knowledge and can translate that into policy implications. The leaders and law makers do not need specialist knowledge, but they -do need to be on top of their brief as it relates to society and the laws that govern it. A person of reasonable intelligence can provide essential oversight to a machine like Google, even if they could not construct such a machine themselves. Nobody can even create a human being themselves from scratch, but that’s not an excuse for being a bumbling lawmaker.

aaron695 6y ago
> but we wouldn’t say that scientists don’t exist anymore. Yes we do. They don't exist as we have romantically understood them. Scientists used to take risks, play with the entire world, question things, actually be open, actually play with science as a child. Now they join the Facebook group "Fuck I love science" and be done with it because they are pushed into STEM as an ultra narrow career and don't actually understand or want to understand science. The real scientists may still exist hidden somewhere but you never see them. For Tech, I've never seen a correct understanding of the Russians online influence during the 2016 elections on HN. I don't know what it is, and I've never seen anyone explain it with authority other than vague hand waving trying to sound like they know, this is from both links and comments on HN.
- willis936 6y ago
  Spoken like someone who doesn’t interact with any scientists. I work at a university and have a friend group of chemists PhD students. Every single one of them fit your requirements for the romantic vision of a scientist, yet have far more accurate models at their disposal than previous generations of scientists. “You never see them.” because you choose not to look. You look at your algorithm driven feed and shape your worldview around it. Incredibly dangerous. We are one second from midnight on the cyberocracy doomsday clock.
  - aaron695 6y ago
    Of my science friends, a few in chemistry, with and without PHD's, no they don't do science. At best they fetishize science pop culture. They are very good at their specializations though. My tech friends do however do science, obviously a subset of my tech friends, for a lot it's also a means to an ends. Those tech friends mess with chemistry, mess with electric experiments, stay up and watch the Higgs Boson announcements and rocket launches. They make rockets with 3D printers(fail). And they mess with computers in their own time. I would say "There’s no such thing as a scientists anymore", where's the HN for scientists?
    - johannes1234321 6y ago
      There isn't the "universal scientist" like a Leonardo da Vinci anymore as there are too much knowledge, but scientists who have broader impact do exist, while most science is in specialisation these days - we are so deep in many fields, that going deeper can't be done equally well in multiple fields.
    - willis936 6y ago
      Ah. So when you say “do science” you mean “worldly and balanced”. Those people exist. Current culture no longer regiments it because it is less effective at making progress. If you’re wealthy, it’s a great way to keep yourself entertained. It’s akin to traveling. There is no doubt that it makes you interesting and valuable and expands your worldview, but it doesn’t actually do anything in terms of adding to the value of humanity. Also, I strongly disagree that scientists are not “doing science”. They are: at an incredible pace on a tight budget. I consider myself more towards the wordly side and less on the specialized side, but I’m an engineer. I don’t need to dedicate my life to focusing in on a series of complicated fields because I don’t need to understand biological mechanisms. I can be one of the best people in my field and then spend my free time dabbling with other things. Saying that people who dedicate their life to actually pushing scientific progress forward are “not doing science” while the people who kick back and play with toys are is incorrect and disrespectful.

by hyko 6y ago

aaron695 6y ago

> but we wouldn’t say that scientists don’t exist anymore. Yes we do. They don't exist as we have romantically understood them. Scientists used to take risks, play with the entire world, question things, actually be open, actually play with science as a child. Now they join the Facebook group "Fuck I love science" and be done with it because they are pushed into STEM as an ultra narrow career and don't actually understand or want to understand science. The real scientists may still exist hidden somewhere but you never see them. For Tech, I've never seen a correct understanding of the Russians online influence during the 2016 elections on HN. I don't know what it is, and I've never seen anyone explain it with authority other than vague hand waving trying to sound like they know, this is from both links and comments on HN.

willis936 6y ago
Spoken like someone who doesn’t interact with any scientists. I work at a university and have a friend group of chemists PhD students. Every single one of them fit your requirements for the romantic vision of a scientist, yet have far more accurate models at their disposal than previous generations of scientists. “You never see them.” because you choose not to look. You look at your algorithm driven feed and shape your worldview around it. Incredibly dangerous. We are one second from midnight on the cyberocracy doomsday clock.
- aaron695 6y ago
  Of my science friends, a few in chemistry, with and without PHD's, no they don't do science. At best they fetishize science pop culture. They are very good at their specializations though. My tech friends do however do science, obviously a subset of my tech friends, for a lot it's also a means to an ends. Those tech friends mess with chemistry, mess with electric experiments, stay up and watch the Higgs Boson announcements and rocket launches. They make rockets with 3D printers(fail). And they mess with computers in their own time. I would say "There’s no such thing as a scientists anymore", where's the HN for scientists?
  - johannes1234321 6y ago
    There isn't the "universal scientist" like a Leonardo da Vinci anymore as there are too much knowledge, but scientists who have broader impact do exist, while most science is in specialisation these days - we are so deep in many fields, that going deeper can't be done equally well in multiple fields.
  - willis936 6y ago
    Ah. So when you say “do science” you mean “worldly and balanced”. Those people exist. Current culture no longer regiments it because it is less effective at making progress. If you’re wealthy, it’s a great way to keep yourself entertained. It’s akin to traveling. There is no doubt that it makes you interesting and valuable and expands your worldview, but it doesn’t actually do anything in terms of adding to the value of humanity. Also, I strongly disagree that scientists are not “doing science”. They are: at an incredible pace on a tight budget. I consider myself more towards the wordly side and less on the specialized side, but I’m an engineer. I don’t need to dedicate my life to focusing in on a series of complicated fields because I don’t need to understand biological mechanisms. I can be one of the best people in my field and then spend my free time dabbling with other things. Saying that people who dedicate their life to actually pushing scientific progress forward are “not doing science” while the people who kick back and play with toys are is incorrect and disrespectful.