The world is not an engineering problem • Hacker News Board

Re: The world is not an engineering problem

#11

Post by garmaine » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 8:52 PM UTC

smacktoward wrote: post #3

I wrote something similar from the opposite end of the ideological spectrum a few years back: https://jasonlefkowitz.net/2014/01/against-line-chart-libera... One reason why I disagree with [technocracy] is because of a core assumption that is embedded deep within it, namely that public policy is at root a values-neutral project. In this worldview, there is an objective Good that we all strive towards, and our progres…

I think we disagree that laws are suppose to be a mechanism for achieving “good.”

Re: The world is not an engineering problem

#12

Post by cirgue » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 8:52 PM UTC

pmarreck wrote: post #7

MereInterest wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taking that argument to its logical conclusion, there should be no public policy whatsoever. Every single policy has at its roots an evidenceless belief. As an extreme example, "Seat belts save lives" is an objective truth, but "Saving lives is a good thing" is an evidenceless belief. That is it believed by the vast majority of the human race in no way constitutes evidence. Evidenceless beliefs are what need to dicta…

Good point technically but I think some subjective valuations are widespread enough to be able to be considered objective, such as "alive/animate things are better than dead/inanimate things", and "joy is superior to pain", and "murdering is bad". And regarding pain/pleasure, you can always do what doctors do and ask patients to assign the intensity a number from 1-10, which is basically a hack that takes a qualitati…

I disagree that joy is superior to pain. They’re both necessary parts of life and one without the other is indistinguishable from oblivion. Plenty of people would disagree about alive/animate versus dead/inanimate and in ways that would probably surprise you. I like mountains, I think they’re certainly more interesting and beautiful than pigeons. As for “murder is bad”, plenty of people disagree vehemently about the definition of murder. Is killing to defend someone else murder? What about killing someone during war time? Those aren’t even close to being settled issues and are absolutely matters of belief that are not provable in any scientific sense.

Re: The world is not an engineering problem

#13

Post by wolfgke » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 8:56 PM UTC

MereInterest wrote: post #4

pmarreck wrote: post #2

Public policy should only be based on objective truths and not evidenceless beliefs or feelings. It's one thing to be for or against marijuana usage; it's another to still have a law on the books banning its use and sale when a growing plethora of science says it's far safer than substances already legalized and regulated (such as alcohol) and actually therapeutic in some cases (such as cancer). It's one thing to be…

Taking that argument to its logical conclusion, there should be no public policy whatsoever. Every single policy has at its roots an evidenceless belief. As an extreme example, "Seat belts save lives" is an objective truth, but "Saving lives is a good thing" is an evidenceless belief. That is it believed by the vast majority of the human race in no way constitutes evidence. Evidenceless beliefs are what need to dicta…

> As an extreme example, "Seat belts save lives" is an objective truth, but "Saving lives is a good thing" is an evidenceless belief. That is it believed by the vast majority of the human race in no way constitutes evidence.

I disagree: I am strongly opposed to force by violence (laws) to prevent people from doing stupid things to themselves. In this sense, I do not necessarily consider saving lives a good thing (of course, there do exist lots of cases where I do).

P.S.: I strongly recommend wearing seatbelts, but am opposed to seatbelt laws.

Re: The world is not an engineering problem

#14

Post by wilg » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 8:58 PM UTC

compiler-guy wrote: post #10

pmarreck wrote: post #2

Public policy should only be based on objective truths and not evidenceless beliefs or feelings. It's one thing to be for or against marijuana usage; it's another to still have a law on the books banning its use and sale when a growing plethora of science says it's far safer than substances already legalized and regulated (such as alcohol) and actually therapeutic in some cases (such as cancer). It's one thing to be…

"Damming this river will hurt the surrounding ecosystem" and "Damming this river will provide power for thousands of people" are both objective truths. The only way to mediate between them is by discussing non-objective things like how we value fish and the services provided by electricity. Do we value keeping fish alive more than keeping old people alive via power-hungry air conditioning? There are millions of simil…

Exactly. The way I think about it is that logic is a wonderful tool for ensuring your beliefs are consistent and helping you implement them effectively, but it's incapable of determining what those views should be.

Put another way, you can only have a logical argument with someone who already agrees with your beliefs.

Re: The world is not an engineering problem

#15

Post by stevew20 » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 8:59 PM UTC

Is this article supposed to be satirical? I have trouble believing people being paid to write can think this way.

Re: The world is not an engineering problem

#16

Post by afpx » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 9:01 PM UTC

This word soup reads like it was generated by the Postmodernism Paper Generator [1]. What am I supposed to take away from this? Is there a TL;DR version?

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism_Generator

Re: The world is not an engineering problem

#17

Post by ur-whale » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 9:09 PM UTC

compiler-guy wrote: post #10

pmarreck wrote: post #2

Public policy should only be based on objective truths and not evidenceless beliefs or feelings. It's one thing to be for or against marijuana usage; it's another to still have a law on the books banning its use and sale when a growing plethora of science says it's far safer than substances already legalized and regulated (such as alcohol) and actually therapeutic in some cases (such as cancer). It's one thing to be…

"Damming this river will hurt the surrounding ecosystem" and "Damming this river will provide power for thousands of people" are both objective truths. The only way to mediate between them is by discussing non-objective things like how we value fish and the services provided by electricity. Do we value keeping fish alive more than keeping old people alive via power-hungry air conditioning? There are millions of simil…

>The only way to mediate between them is by discussing non-objective things

Wrong.

Both the fish and the electricity need to be considered in a long term utilitarian framework.

The only reason you seem to have two conflicting objective truths is because your time window is too short.

Re: The world is not an engineering problem

#18

Post by cousin_it » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 9:11 PM UTC

Cause that's where the truth comes from ladies and gentlemen, the gut.

Re: The world is not an engineering problem

#19

Post by nateabele » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 9:11 PM UTC

chrispeel wrote: post #6

The idea here is something we've lost from our thinking, one of those virtues Deirdre McCloskey writes about, the idea of faith, that there are things we have to take as felt not as demonstrated by science. Even if we don't understand everything scientifically now, even some things that we feel , does not mean that we cannot try to do so in the future. I accept faith only as a step towards scientific understanding.

My favorite part of Antifragile was where the author defines the 'Soviet-Harvard delusion' as "the unscientific overestimation of the reach of scientific knowledge".

Let us know when you find formal proofs for human values or systems of morality. That's almost certainly Nobel Prize-worthy.

Re: The world is not an engineering problem

#20

Post by steaknfries » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 9:14 PM UTC

compiler-guy wrote: post #10

pmarreck wrote: post #2

Public policy should only be based on objective truths and not evidenceless beliefs or feelings. It's one thing to be for or against marijuana usage; it's another to still have a law on the books banning its use and sale when a growing plethora of science says it's far safer than substances already legalized and regulated (such as alcohol) and actually therapeutic in some cases (such as cancer). It's one thing to be…

"Damming this river will hurt the surrounding ecosystem" and "Damming this river will provide power for thousands of people" are both objective truths. The only way to mediate between them is by discussing non-objective things like how we value fish and the services provided by electricity. Do we value keeping fish alive more than keeping old people alive via power-hungry air conditioning? There are millions of simil…

> Do we value keeping fish alive more than keeping old people alive via power-hungry air conditioning?

Consider the towns and cities by bodies of water that have either dried up or been polluted. It's financially ruinous because it either/or kills tourism and/or fishing industry; the salty dust left behind by water causes horrible health problems; there's natural brain/brawn drain that leaves only the older and sickly behind to either fend for themselves or be on gov pay check. Just off the top of my head. I can easily think up a lot more effed up scenarios that have already happened in the world (see Aral Sea).