5 ms·

80% of science? How would things like GPS or rockets work if that was the case? What we consider reliable technology would be blowing up everywhere around us co

by synu 4y ago

80% of science? How would things like GPS or rockets work if that was the case? What we consider reliable technology would be blowing up everywhere around us constantly.

woevdbz 4y ago
Science, not engineering
- synu 4y ago
  Is rocket science possible sans science? Can you be more specific what engineering without dependency on any science is? Like how do you even approach inventing gps as an engineer if 80% of physics calculations don’t actually work for example?
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Almost all of what is called "rocket science" is firmly in the engineering wheelhouse. GPS relies very little on 20th century science, beyond GR corrections. The science behind orbital mechanics is just Newton's Laws, stuff thoroughly settled centuries ago.
- orzig 4y ago
  Where do you think engineers get their equations?
  - hcks 4y ago
    For the science part of it: >100 years old scientific literature
    - synu 4y ago
      Possibly this was sarcasm, but I’ll bite just in case. There is quite a lot of scientific research that informs modern aerospace engineering: https://phys.org/tags/aerospace+engineering/ https://phys.org/tags/aerospace+engineering/ You’ll find similar physics research for example in nuclear power, optics, quantum computers, telecommunications, engines.. all kinds of engineering really. Chemistry is also quite relevant and there are new, stronger materials being engineered all the time based on research. It’s definitely not all just 1900s physics driving everything, even if you say that for some reason anything researched then doesn’t fall under the 80% of science that doesn’t work (which GP didn’t).
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Where do you think scientists get their data? Much of what you think of as science came from engineers.
ncmncm 4y ago
That is Engineering.
- synu 4y ago
  Do you also consider stuff like physics and chemistry engineering and not science? Otherwise I’m not sure how you’d achieve anything as an engineer if 80% of your scientific understanding of how your materials work were wrong, for example.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Some is, some isn't. Much of what we call science was work done by engineers.
    - synu 4y ago
      So going back to the original topic, 80% of science doesn’t work but actually a lot of science is done by engineers and that’s what the 20% that works is?
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        Got no grounds for opinion about physics or chemistry. Certainly some of it is good work, although I harbor doubts about the ultimate usefulness of string theory. But your example of GPS, and others' of "rocket science", show that you have even shakier ground for opinion, along with insufficient respect for engineering. You are not alone in that: scientists get good publicity. They even get dedicated press offices at universities.
        synu 4y ago
        Engineering is great. I guess it just wasn’t clear to me that GP didn’t mean science older than 100 years or that physics and chemistry didn’t fully count as science when I replied to their blanket statement that 80% or 90% of science was wrong. If you define science to exclude anything that is in practical use by engineers and/or has become “settled” over time then the statement is less surprising (but also perhaps less provocative and interesting).
paganel 4y ago
Don't think GPS would be possible in this day and age, I mean, "inventing" it and "implementing" it from zero. It was possible to "invent" and "implement" it in the late '70s - the '80s because back then the "capitalist virus" hadn't entirely invaded the US MIC (and the scientists associated with it), it was all basically a socialist system. That is no longer the case, even when it comes to Government-sponsored work.
- dahart 4y ago
  What about Starlink? I don’t think it’s remotely accurate to describe GPS as “socialist”. It was a military project. There’s a long list of military projects with more funding than GPS that have been invented and implemented since then.
  - paganel 4y ago
    That’s what I was saying, the military used to be socialist, even in the capitalist US. It was definitely socialist during WW2. I think it started becoming real capitalist once the (first) Cold War ended, I think the contractors thing started becoming more and more important throughout the ‘90s and the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq were fought by a capitalist US military. It’s telling that these 20 years of war (2001 - 2021) didn’t bring us almost anything worthy when it comes to science funded by the military, unlike almost all the other wars in which the US had been involved. Starlink is mostly a marketing thing, and is mostly based on science that had been funded during the Cold War.
    - dahart 4y ago
      I don't know what you mean. The military isn't an economic system, and it's definitely not socialist. It has a rigid authoritarian hierarchy, and it's funded by taxes, always has been. The years you cite are when drone tech was developed and deployed in combat, and cryptography improved. The DoD funds all kinds of research through the university system that isn't public, you may have no idea what it brought us because it's too recent. The DoD is funding all kinds of projects today, despite our capitalist tendencies, for example: https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3098211/dod-announces-first-set-of-projects-to-receive-funding-from-the-pilot-program-t/ https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/309821... I don't know what you mean about Starlink being marketing. They've deployed more satellites than all other satellites to date combined. You said you thought a project this size wasn't doable today, yet there it is. It seems like you're arbitrarily judging what projects you believe are worthy of consideration in order to support a preconceived notion. Why do you believe GPS involved more invention or development than Starlink, drones, cryptography, machine learning, or anything else? GPS technology was also developed before the US Navstar project began, the science already existed and it wasn't some kind of lone independent invention.

by synu 4y ago

80% of science? How would things like GPS or rockets work if that was the case? What we consider reliable technology would be blowing up everywhere around us constantly.

woevdbz 4y ago

Science, not engineering

synu 4y ago
Is rocket science possible sans science? Can you be more specific what engineering without dependency on any science is? Like how do you even approach inventing gps as an engineer if 80% of physics calculations don’t actually work for example?
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Almost all of what is called "rocket science" is firmly in the engineering wheelhouse. GPS relies very little on 20th century science, beyond GR corrections. The science behind orbital mechanics is just Newton's Laws, stuff thoroughly settled centuries ago.
orzig 4y ago
Where do you think engineers get their equations?
- hcks 4y ago
  For the science part of it: >100 years old scientific literature
  - synu 4y ago
    Possibly this was sarcasm, but I’ll bite just in case. There is quite a lot of scientific research that informs modern aerospace engineering: https://phys.org/tags/aerospace+engineering/ https://phys.org/tags/aerospace+engineering/ You’ll find similar physics research for example in nuclear power, optics, quantum computers, telecommunications, engines.. all kinds of engineering really. Chemistry is also quite relevant and there are new, stronger materials being engineered all the time based on research. It’s definitely not all just 1900s physics driving everything, even if you say that for some reason anything researched then doesn’t fall under the 80% of science that doesn’t work (which GP didn’t).
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Where do you think scientists get their data? Much of what you think of as science came from engineers.

ncmncm 4y ago

That is Engineering.

synu 4y ago
Do you also consider stuff like physics and chemistry engineering and not science? Otherwise I’m not sure how you’d achieve anything as an engineer if 80% of your scientific understanding of how your materials work were wrong, for example.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Some is, some isn't. Much of what we call science was work done by engineers.
  - synu 4y ago
    So going back to the original topic, 80% of science doesn’t work but actually a lot of science is done by engineers and that’s what the 20% that works is?
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Got no grounds for opinion about physics or chemistry. Certainly some of it is good work, although I harbor doubts about the ultimate usefulness of string theory. But your example of GPS, and others' of "rocket science", show that you have even shakier ground for opinion, along with insufficient respect for engineering. You are not alone in that: scientists get good publicity. They even get dedicated press offices at universities.
      - synu 4y ago
        Engineering is great. I guess it just wasn’t clear to me that GP didn’t mean science older than 100 years or that physics and chemistry didn’t fully count as science when I replied to their blanket statement that 80% or 90% of science was wrong. If you define science to exclude anything that is in practical use by engineers and/or has become “settled” over time then the statement is less surprising (but also perhaps less provocative and interesting).

paganel 4y ago

Don't think GPS would be possible in this day and age, I mean, "inventing" it and "implementing" it from zero. It was possible to "invent" and "implement" it in the late '70s - the '80s because back then the "capitalist virus" hadn't entirely invaded the US MIC (and the scientists associated with it), it was all basically a socialist system. That is no longer the case, even when it comes to Government-sponsored work.

dahart 4y ago
What about Starlink? I don’t think it’s remotely accurate to describe GPS as “socialist”. It was a military project. There’s a long list of military projects with more funding than GPS that have been invented and implemented since then.
- paganel 4y ago
  That’s what I was saying, the military used to be socialist, even in the capitalist US. It was definitely socialist during WW2. I think it started becoming real capitalist once the (first) Cold War ended, I think the contractors thing started becoming more and more important throughout the ‘90s and the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq were fought by a capitalist US military. It’s telling that these 20 years of war (2001 - 2021) didn’t bring us almost anything worthy when it comes to science funded by the military, unlike almost all the other wars in which the US had been involved. Starlink is mostly a marketing thing, and is mostly based on science that had been funded during the Cold War.
  - dahart 4y ago
    I don't know what you mean. The military isn't an economic system, and it's definitely not socialist. It has a rigid authoritarian hierarchy, and it's funded by taxes, always has been. The years you cite are when drone tech was developed and deployed in combat, and cryptography improved. The DoD funds all kinds of research through the university system that isn't public, you may have no idea what it brought us because it's too recent. The DoD is funding all kinds of projects today, despite our capitalist tendencies, for example: https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3098211/dod-announces-first-set-of-projects-to-receive-funding-from-the-pilot-program-t/ https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/309821... I don't know what you mean about Starlink being marketing. They've deployed more satellites than all other satellites to date combined. You said you thought a project this size wasn't doable today, yet there it is. It seems like you're arbitrarily judging what projects you believe are worthy of consideration in order to support a preconceived notion. Why do you believe GPS involved more invention or development than Starlink, drones, cryptography, machine learning, or anything else? GPS technology was also developed before the US Navstar project began, the science already existed and it wasn't some kind of lone independent invention.