3 ms·
His argument is that science and engineering haven't drifted from reality due to commercial interest. I am saying that whether or not science and engineering a
by jgg 13y ago
His argument is that science and engineering haven't drifted from reality due to commercial interest.
I am saying that whether or not science and engineering are tied to reality has little to do with being relevant to the commercial world.
- icebraining 13y agoI realize that, but I don't think you have a valid counter argument, since it doesn't contradict what was claimed.
- jgg 13y agoWhat was claimed: Field X has resisted "uselessness" (to some arbitrary extent, assumed to be noticeable since the author felt like mentioning it as being significant in relation to the humanities) due to influence of the commercial world. My claim: influence of commercial world is extremely unimportant for most of the important parts of Field X, ergo, commercial influence has had almost no bearing on keeping Field X "useful", regardless of whether or not Field X is actually useful. Statement to support claim: the vast majority of what we consider 'science' (lumped in with engineering by the author) consists of a theoretical backbone tested against reality, which has nothing to do directly with commercial interests in theory, and often in practice. Examples include mechanics, EM theory, quantum mechanics, relativity, genetics, number theory, integral calculus. You would have a hard time proving that these things, which all have a basis in reality, are that way because of "crass commercial necessity", as the author claimed.