Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The world is not an engineering problem

theviewfromcullingworth.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 76 posts

Re: The world is not an engineering problem

#21

Post by Nadya »

wolfgke wrote: post #13
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…

> 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…

Let's try and give your picture a new frame. It may change your opinion on seatbelt laws! :)

From what I've been told and have read, the fines for not wearing a seatbelt are less about preventing people from making a potentially life threatening decision and more about preventing people from making a really bloody mess that tax payers then have to pay to clean up. A dead body strapped inside of a car is a lot easier to clean up than a dead body thrown 60 feet down the road and torn into who knows how many pieces in the process. Not to mention that what is the equivalent to a human cannonball can cause further damage to property and people who are unfortunate enough to be in the way.

Thinking of the fine as "Increasing Cost to Society" instead of "Preventing you from endangering yourself" makes it more agreeable to me - as I think we agree on the stance that laws that prevent people from doing stupid things to themselves aren't good laws. Laws that reduce wasteful costs to society so that funding can be put into less wasteful things, in my opinion at least, are good laws though.

Since most laws against preventing people from doing stupid things to themselves saves wasteful spending - I agree with them within that framing of the picture.

Re: The world is not an engineering problem

#22

Post by empath75 »

ur-whale wrote: post #17
compiler-guy wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

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

Says who?

You have an infinite regress problem here. You eventually are going to have to fall back on non objective feelings about how the world should be to justify your actions.

Re: The world is not an engineering problem

#23

Post by thfuran »

nateabele wrote: post #19
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.

Science isn't about formal proofs

Re: The world is not an engineering problem

#24

Post by comonad-colaboy »

thfuran wrote: post #23
nateabele wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Science isn't about formal proofs

Science is about verifiable proofs (verifiable within reasonable time limits) which somewhat means the same thing as formal proofs in the grand scheme of things. Correct me if I am wrong

Edit: forgot to put in time limits

Re: The world is not an engineering problem

#25

Post by hcg »

I was hoping this would be much a critique of the tendency of people to place too much faith in technology, to ignore the human element of solutions, and (among SV types especially) to prize their own goals above all else. To try and come up with purely technical solutions to the problems of society, but to do so by trying to create an environment which lets their own capitalist goals succeed while tossing scraps to the rest.

Cause even when it's well meaning, I still can't stand it. Their (our I suppose) own conviction they they are right fuels a randian like commitment to individualism. But then they want to appear woke and smart and so they start talking about basic income and how it's fine to have half the population just sort of subsisting. Or we'll fix democracy with smartphones and blockchain.

Also the tendency towards not just being temporarily embarrassed millionaires, but temporarily embarrassed tech billionaires.

Re: The world is not an engineering problem

#26

Post by comonad-colaboy »

"The world is not an engineering problem" says the overprivileged pompous first-worlder who needs a dose of harsh reality every now and then. Send his ass to a destitute third-world country where food and sanitation is scarce, and then let's see how his "feelings" matter

Re: The world is not an engineering problem

#27

Post by thfuran »

empath75 wrote: post #22
ur-whale wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

> Both the fish and the electricity need to be considered in a long term utilitarian framework. Says who? You have an infinite regress problem here. You eventually are going to have to fall back on non objective feelings about how the world should be to justify your actions.

Right. We're going to fall back on "we should maximize utility because that's better than less utility". But we're not going to have to fall back on how it makes me feel to see dead fish or somesuch.

Re: The world is not an engineering problem

#28

Post by Nasrudith »

The Brexit rhetoric even though it probably was meant in abstract terms seemed rather romanticist which I see as a danger in itself - dogmatically clinging to abstract ideas because of feelings regardless of outcomes.

One thing that I feel is always missed in discussions of consequentialism are second order effects which are what make decisions untenable. While the classic "murder a stranger for organs" might technically save more lives it causes all sorts of nasty ripple effects - people would rightfully become more paranoid or take measures to ensure uselessness of their organs after death for sheer strategic spite. Taking a stand for principles is still possible in that framework - the goal being to make bad actions more expensive or good actions cheaper.

Still there are certainly good points about needing to choose how one wants to shape society while setting goals - as well as recognizing that society doesn't go as planned or projected and it changes in response to your actions.

Re: The world is not an engineering problem

#29

Post by [deleted] »

ur-whale wrote: post #17
compiler-guy wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

[deleted]

Re: The world is not an engineering problem

#30

Post by compiler-guy »

steaknfries wrote: post #20
compiler-guy wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 sickl…

The grandparent is meant as an example of one of the many tradeoffs that are hard to decide via objective truths. The exact details are not significant to the larger point.

But along the way to the unfortunate end you describe above, many good things came of the dam. Any calculus needs to evaluate the tradeoffs. "Were they worth it?" doesn't lend itself to objective-factual analysis, because "worth" is all about values.

Post reply on HN