This man knows nothing of history, let alone physics.
[deleted]
Technological evolution has a momentum of its own
11–20 of 25 posts
Re: Technological evolution has a momentum of its own
#12Yes, Lord Ridley, who inherited a bank and had to be bailed out by the govnemtnet, lecturing everybody on the triumph of the free market. No thanks.
Re: Technological evolution has a momentum of its own
#13The question on the subtitle: > Does scientific research drive innovation? This is so obvious that it becomes stupid. Of course it does, there's a lot of research that had to occur before most innovations in history, and most of it was not lucrative by itself. But then, there's something to be said about bottlenecks. Basic research has been far ahead actual production for a long while. As a consequence, one will real…
Throughout most of history, the causation was reversed. Technology drove science much more than vice versa.
For example, Watt and friends improved steam engines, and only later formal thermodynamics was invented to explain why and how steam engines work. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution)
You'll see a similar effect with the agricultural revolution. We know now that legumes like clover provide nitrogen for the soil. But that's way after people figured out it was a good idea. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Agricultural_Revolutio...)
Re: Technological evolution has a momentum of its own
#14"The Myth of Basic Science" is clearly one of those titles that will put the entire thread on tilt, so we changed it to the subtitle. Please comment only if you have something substantive to say. If you think the article is unredeemably bad, you can always flag it, but don't degrade the thread with empty dismissals.
[deleted]
Re: Technological evolution has a momentum of its own
#15"The Myth of Basic Science" is clearly one of those titles that will put the entire thread on tilt, so we changed it to the subtitle. Please comment only if you have something substantive to say. If you think the article is unredeemably bad, you can always flag it, but don't degrade the thread with empty dismissals.
Actually, I posted partly because I thought it was such a dubious argument that I hoped to see rebuttals, as well as possibly a discussion of why people in the finance world often discount science.
I don't mind you changing it but I'm not surprised you're getting some pushback.
Re: Technological evolution has a momentum of its own
#16"The Myth of Basic Science" is clearly one of those titles that will put the entire thread on tilt, so we changed it to the subtitle. Please comment only if you have something substantive to say. If you think the article is unredeemably bad, you can always flag it, but don't degrade the thread with empty dismissals.
I don't understand why you need to censor the author's title for him - obviously provocative and pompous titles will put the thread on tilt. If the author wants to be taken seriously when they write editorials especially about science presumably there should be some rigor involved in the process - not just headline grabbing euphemisms. If the author's editorial doesn't evoke substantive feedback - maybe that fault li…
That's an argument for not changing linkbait titles on HN at all, which would be a disaster for this place.
(Btw, author usually don't write the headlines, so it's good to give them the benefit of the doubt on that.)
Re: Technological evolution has a momentum of its own
#17"The Myth of Basic Science" is clearly one of those titles that will put the entire thread on tilt, so we changed it to the subtitle. Please comment only if you have something substantive to say. If you think the article is unredeemably bad, you can always flag it, but don't degrade the thread with empty dismissals.
Actually, I posted partly because I thought it was such a dubious argument that I hoped to see rebuttals, as well as possibly a discussion of why people in the finance world often discount science. I don't mind you changing it but I'm not surprised you're getting some pushback.
> it was such a dubious argument that I hoped to see rebuttals
That's a high-risk proposition. Most often it just produces ragefests and ends up equivalent to trolling.
Fortunately several HN commenters have already posted thoughtful critiques of the article, which is likely enough to make for a high-quality thread. That was by no means guaranteed, though. Threads are sensitive to their initial conditions, i.e. the title and first comments.
Re: Technological evolution has a momentum of its own
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, I posted partly because I thought it was such a dubious argument that I hoped to see rebuttals, as well as possibly a discussion of why people in the finance world often discount science. I don't mind you changing it but I'm not surprised you're getting some pushback.
> it was such a dubious argument that I hoped to see rebuttals That's a high-risk proposition. Most often it just produces ragefests and ends up equivalent to trolling. Fortunately several HN commenters have already posted thoughtful critiques of the article, which is likely enough to make for a high-quality thread. That was by no means guaranteed, though. Threads are sensitive to their initial conditions, i.e. the t…
I just can't resist those dangerous thrills ;)
Re: Technological evolution has a momentum of its own
#19So, if technology is progressing in parallel, why do we need to support it by enforcing monopolies with patents?
Re: Technological evolution has a momentum of its own
#20The first half of this editorial doesn't really address basic science. In the second half he does get to the premise in the title, and he gives it some support ... but he has very few cards to play. Yes, sometimes scientists get caught in an ivory bottle for too long. But sometimes practitioners play "poke and hope" for too long.
The article makes more sense (or at least it did to me) once you read the byline: the author is a politician in the British Parliament, and this is more of a budget-related op-ed than analytical or historical piece. He wants to reduce UK science funding, and this is his defense of that position.