So, if technology is progressing in parallel, why do we need to support it by enforcing monopolies with patents?
Patents are one of many market controls that keep capitalism from destroying itself. They are, of course, abused like many things.
Technological evolution has a momentum of its own
21–25 of 25 posts
Re: Technological evolution has a momentum of its own
#22It is deeply disturbing article, down to the point where it looks like an attack on fundamental science.
Without science providing the explanation how all the fancy technology works, inventors would be blind and deaf.
For example - how can you make an accurate GPS without understanding relativity? How one can make a CPU without science of solid state physics? A computer network without information theory?
The better explanation would that fundamental science research gives a foundation for the future progress, in both applied science and technology. Those next steps can happen sometimes much, much later so the science behind it appears to be disconnected or a completely mundane knowledge by that time.
Re: Technological evolution has a momentum of its own
#23The 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 ni…
> Throughout most of history, the causation was reversed. Technology drove science much more than vice versa.
You're just making a blanket statement with out providing a detailed supporting narative.
For example: you mention agricultural production - What is the comparative improvement achieved in 3000 years of say Human agrarian trial and error vs. what was made possible by Gregor Mandel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel) and Modern genetics in the 20th century?
Re: Technological evolution has a momentum of its own
#24It is deeply disturbing article, down to the point where it looks like an attack on fundamental science. Without science providing the explanation how all the fancy technology works, inventors would be blind and deaf. For example - how can you make an accurate GPS without understanding relativity? How one can make a CPU without science of solid state physics? A computer network without information theory? The better…
I found it disturbing for another reason too: the outright attack on the uniqueness and value of individual thought.
Yes, several people invented light bulbs. When something is a good idea many people will see that and produce variations on it. But that doesn't mean you can factor out initiative and individual genius. It just means that lots of people possess those virtues and that sometimes great minds do think alike.
The author of this piece seems to want to abstract us all into a giant seething heap of flesh whose writhing produces some kind of inexorable motion like the way molecules banging around produce pressure from a confined gas. I don't think it follows.
Elsewhere someone wrote that this seems to be a British political hit piece on science funding. Figures.
Re: Technological evolution has a momentum of its own
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ni…
> Throughout most of history, the causation was reversed. Technology drove science much more than vice versa. You're just making a blanket statement with out providing a detailed supporting narative. For example: you mention agricultural production - What is the comparative improvement achieved in 3000 years of say Human agrarian trial and error vs. what was made possible by Gregor Mandel ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w…
I'd hope Wikipedia would provide that supporting narrative.
Science is awesome---but I don't see how even if the improvements since 1900 would dwarf any improvements before would have any bearing on my argument that `throughout most history, the causation was reversed.' Those are two completely independent observations.
In any case, it might be instructive to look at "Productivity improving technologies" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_improving_technol...) and see how they enabled science vs were enabled by science.
Containerization of sea trade is one of my favourite topics there. It's a huge productivity improver----but science played little role in its introduction and success.
On the other hand, the Green Revolution is an example for the successful application of science to technology. Also, the Haber-Bosch-Process (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Haber_process). Many of us wouldn't be alive today if not for these two developments.
As an aside on Mendel: his data looks too good on some measures. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Controversy)