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

51–60 of 76 posts

Re: The world is not an engineering problem

#51

Post by compiler-guy »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #41
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 like how we value fish and the services provided by electricity. Seriously, a better way would be to start doing 5-whys on this, instead of going for "non-objective things". A quick attempt will tell you that we care for both ecosystem and power, but depending on the local context, we might care more about one or the other. Maybe we can impo…

"we might care more about one or the other"

Caring more about one or the other is exactly the issue. The reasoning about the degree of which to care about either at all is the issue that cannot be resolved objectively.

Putting a dam in place that won't impact the ecosystem so much--sure, we can minimize the tradeoffs, but the tradeoffs remain, and all resolve to what we value vis a vis what it costs. Which is not objective.

Re: The world is not an engineering problem

#52

Post by dvtrn »

Nasrudith wrote: post #28

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 technic…

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.

Found myself in a perplexing discussion not long ago that-after a lot of words that seemed to operate similarly to what you're describing here.

The topic was over banning plastic bags versus something with more politically loaded outcomes like Brexit, though. The argument the other person brought up was to equivocate banning plastic bags with banning plastic straws and how this constituted a real harm to the disabled community and those who may have a valid need for straws--forcing me to ask if a better outcome for someone with a physical impairment would be to promote durable, fabric bags that are less like to suffer to sudden structural failure (overfilling a plastic bag that rips open unexpectedly), and where the logical limit was in comparing the harm of removing plastic straws and removing plastic bags.

They clung to the comparison that banning bags was equivalent to robbing the physically disabled from needed resources but couldn't really articulate any position beyond that emotional appeal to a community who-I conceded-should be considered more than they probably are. Comparing bags to straws on the grounds presented didn't feel like it was very outcome oriented, though.

It's an endlessly interesting phenomenon of thought to watch take place in real time.

Re: The world is not an engineering problem

#53

Post by TeMPOraL »

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.

Yeah, but the way between the real problem and fundamental non-objective feelings is a pretty long one, and on the way you may discover that differences in those feelings aren't that great, and they all can be satisfied in many ways - which means you can devise a solution that's acceptable to every reasonable person. Sure, it may not always work, but it's worth trying.

Re: The world is not an engineering problem

#54

Post by TeMPOraL »

compiler-guy wrote: post #51
TeMPOraL wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only way to mediate between them is by discussing non-objective things like how we value fish and the services provided by electricity. Seriously, a better way would be to start doing 5-whys on this, instead of going for "non-objective things". A quick attempt will tell you that we care for both ecosystem and power, but depending on the local context, we might care more about one or the other. Maybe we can impo…

"we might care more about one or the other" Caring more about one or the other is exactly the issue. The reasoning about the degree of which to care about either at all is the issue that cannot be resolved objectively. Putting a dam in place that won't impact the ecosystem so much--sure, we can minimize the tradeoffs, but the tradeoffs remain, and all resolve to what we value vis a vis what it costs. Which is not obj…

Of course the reasoning is objective, once you dig down to the underlying "non-objective" values.

Think of it as akin to mathematics. Mathematics starts with axioms, which can be completely arbitrary, and then derives an entire universe from them by following only objective, formal reasoning. Similarly here, you have some personal values that are (to some extent) arbitrary, but accepting those, you get to use objective reasoning to devise a set of tradeoffs that satisfies those values the best.

Also sometimes different people with different values aren't really in conflict, they just don't have enough knowledge to realize their values aren't being violated. Fix that, and you can get agreement.

Re: The world is not an engineering problem

#55

Post by compiler-guy »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #54
compiler-guy wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"we might care more about one or the other" Caring more about one or the other is exactly the issue. The reasoning about the degree of which to care about either at all is the issue that cannot be resolved objectively. Putting a dam in place that won't impact the ecosystem so much--sure, we can minimize the tradeoffs, but the tradeoffs remain, and all resolve to what we value vis a vis what it costs. Which is not obj…

Of course the reasoning is objective, once you dig down to the underlying "non-objective" values. Think of it as akin to mathematics. Mathematics starts with axioms, which can be completely arbitrary, and then derives an entire universe from them by following only objective, formal reasoning. Similarly here, you have some personal values that are (to some extent) arbitrary, but accepting those, you get to use objecti…

The axioms are precisely what is not objective.

Re: The world is not an engineering problem

#56

Post by naasking »

compiler-guy wrote: post #50
naasking wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only way to mediate between them is by discussing non-objective things like how we value fish and the services provided by electricity. Why are those non-objective?

Which is more valuable, a fish or a person's comfort? There is no objective answer to that question.

>There is no objective answer to that question.

Prove it.

Re: The world is not an engineering problem

#57

Post by TeMPOraL »

compiler-guy wrote: post #55
TeMPOraL wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course the reasoning is objective, once you dig down to the underlying "non-objective" values. Think of it as akin to mathematics. Mathematics starts with axioms, which can be completely arbitrary, and then derives an entire universe from them by following only objective, formal reasoning. Similarly here, you have some personal values that are (to some extent) arbitrary, but accepting those, you get to use objecti…

The axioms are precisely what is not objective.

Yes. But everything above them is.

Re: The world is not an engineering problem

#58

Post by claudiawerner »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #44

Like hell it isn't. At the risk of going "no true scottsman", I hate this kind of anti-intellectual nonsense. The methods of science, engineering and rational reasoning are the best tools we have for solving world problems. They were literally invented for it. They're reified applied reasoning. You eschew them at your own peril. Now of course to solve problems involving humans, you have to factor in the human element…

>The methods of science, engineering and rational reasoning are the best tools we have for solving world problems.

How do you feel about the fact that was is rational and irrational (indeed our whole meta-rational basis) has changed in time according not to new discoveries but merely the movement of the cultural zeitgeist[0]? What about the differences between instrumental reason (and rationality), technological rationality in which modern technology changes what we see as rational (see Marcuse) and rationality of ends, rather than just the means?

My point is that we can't simply say "rationality" as if it's a fixed tool we can use so easily, at least, we can't use it without also considering the current ideological context in which we are using it. Surely you admit there are different rationalities, such as economic rationality, which would seem to eschew any human factor that does not count towards profit efficiency?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_of_Reason_(Horkheimer)

Re: The world is not an engineering problem

#59

Post by MereInterest »

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…

The example there wasn't as something I was trying to convince people of, but rather to show how unobservable beliefs are necessary to provide value judgments on observables. You have different set of evidenceless beliefs, including "Laws are threats of force by violence, and should therefore have high bars to implementation." These evidenceless beliefs then influence which actions should be taken.

Re: The world is not an engineering problem

#60

Post by MereInterest »

naasking wrote: post #46
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…

> "Saving lives is a good thing" is an evidenceless belief. Is it? Any kind of value system must presuppose the value of life because only life can hold something valuable. Value systems that do not are therefore inconsistent.

I don't see any inconsistency there. For example, I could imagine a value system that solely values the existence of paper clips. Actions that increase the number of paper clips in the universe are good, while actions that decrease the number of paper clips in the universe are bad. Life has value only in as much as it causes paper clips to exist.

It would be a rather silly value system for a human to have, but there wouldn't be any inconsistency in it.

Post reply on HN