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

31–40 of 76 posts

Re: The world is not an engineering problem

#31

Post by pavelrub »

thfuran wrote: post #27
empath75 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> "we should maximize utility because that's better than less utility

Depending on how you define "utility" - this is either a meaningless tautology that doesn't say anything at all, or a subjective belief that can be easily challenged by equally subjective alternatives.

Re: The world is not an engineering problem

#33

Post by TeMPOraL »

comonad-colaboy wrote: post #24
thfuran wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You're wrong.

Science is about building and refining models (theories) in order to make them match observable reality as close as possible, in order to use those models to predict what happens in the future - both by itself, and in consequence of us poking stuff. That's what it means to know "how something works".

Engineering takes these models and adds a "what's the best way to poke things to achieve a desired outcome?" aspect.

Formal proofs are for mathematicians. Mathematics is a purely abstract invention and operates in its own universe, where absolute formal proofs are possible.

Re: The world is not an engineering problem

#34

Post by thfuran »

compiler-guy wrote: post #30
steaknfries wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 valu…

> "worth" is all about values.

So are engineering problems.

Re: The world is not an engineering problem

#35

Post by ravitation »

comonad-colaboy wrote: post #24
thfuran wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"Science", in the broadest sense, is only concerned with the systematic study of the physical and natural world through observation and experimentation, with the goal of explanation and predictability. To that end, science is reliant of empirical evidence, not formal proofs.

The various disciplines that generally rely on "formal proofs" are referred to as "formal sciences" (logic, mathematics, statistics, etc.), but are technically not actual "sciences" since they are fundamentally abstract (as opposed to how we defined science above) - which is why they are generally concerned with formal proofs and not empirical evidence. Of course the formal sciences frequently provide the natural sciences and social sciences with ways to describe the physical/natural world and the social world, respectively.

Re: The world is not an engineering problem

#36

Post by spookthesunset »

Nadya wrote: post #21
wolfgke wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 simplify what you just wrote.... "Increasing Cost to Society":

You are forcing folks to internalize an externality. Same with carbon cap & trade schemes. Same with helmet laws. Same with toll roads. Etc...

Re: The world is not an engineering problem

#37

Post by TeMPOraL »

wilg wrote: post #14
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…

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.

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

Technically true, but that's an easy (and all too frequently used) way to dismiss other people's arguments and keep believing whatever you want.

It's very unlikely that any real-world policy question is a question about your fundamental value. You most likely don't value marijuana intrinsically. The future of a river dam is probably not the real center of your morality. Rational reasoning is useful to illuminate connection between the subject of an argument and your moral values. A connection that usually is pretty complex, and allows for honest and patient enough people to reach the same conclusion given the same knowledge about the problem.

Re: The world is not an engineering problem

#38

Post by tathougies »

comonad-colaboy wrote: post #24
thfuran wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Formal proof typically refers to a branch of mathematics / philosophy concerned with the symbolic manipulation of formal systems in order to prove axioms about representations of real world objects.

For example, a system like Coq (https://coq.inria.fr/) is concerned with formal proofs, but is not really a foundation for most of science.

Re: The world is not an engineering problem

#39

Post by imgabe »

I don't see an alternative offered here. The argument seems to be "don't do things just because you think they'll produce the best result". Which...makes no sense?

If this advice is followed, we would have to knowingly choose to do something that we expect to be worse than another option we're considering. What do we hope to gain from that?

Re: The world is not an engineering problem

#40

Post by tathougies »

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…

Why are you opposed to force by violence?
Post reply on HN