= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eugine_Nier comments on Privileging the Question - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (311)
This strikes me as a bit strong. What kind of answer could Kepler or Newton have given to this question regarding the theory planetary motion?
Better tidal tables and navigation at sea are two extremely important uses which come to mind as being lucrative products of a better understanding of celestial mechanics.
I'm not sure these uses would have been clear to Kepler. Also what about the scientists doing research on the LHC?
Celestial navigation long predated Kepler, and he was far from ignorant, so it's pretty unlikely he was unaware. Though it's true he probably would've argued that his astronomical learning was more useful for casting horoscopes and pursuing his Platonist theology.
You're changing the topic. Just because you picked an awful example - one of the very few areas in astronomy which really does have immediate cash payoffs - doesn't oblige me to defend every physics project or paper ever. I'm not sure the LHC is a good use of money either, since it didn't find an anomaly which could trigger new theoretical insight and discoveries, but just what was predicted.
I suspect the LHC was a mistake too, but that's not clear just from the fact that it hasn't revolutionized physics. We'd also have to correct for hindsight bias, and show that a Higgs-only outcome was too likely in advance to make the high-value alternative possibilities worth pursuing.
ETA: For instance, I believe I recall one physicist assigning probability ~.5 to 'we only discover the higgs' and ~.5 to 'we discover the higgs plus new physics' in advance. If the probability were anywhere near that high, it would likely be very easy to justify the LHC.
One could also have meta-inductive reasons to research something. E.g. We know that certain fields, physics in particular, have yielded huge technological advancements as a result of their blind theoretical advancement. That conceivably justifies researching fundamental issues in physics even without "what would you do with this" knowledge.
Both the development of scientific hypotheses and testing them fall under the category of expanding the general knowledge base. Also, both research areas identified are at the fundamental level. Expanding the general knowledge base about the fundamental facts of nature is an inherently valuable activity.
If I can solve planetary motion, I will be famous and professionally respected. I will feel great about myself, rich noblemen will want to become my patrons, and I will be appointed to prestigious and lucrative posts like President of the Royal Society or Master of the Mint. I will be forever remembered as one of the greatest scientists in all of history!
That might count as "signaling".
What exactly counts as "signalling"? I started to write down a definition, but I think it's better you give yours.
The colloquial definition is "Useless but impressive and flatters my vanity".
The probabilistic definition is "Observable thing X signals quality A means P(A|X) > P(A)".
The economic definition is "Alice signals P to Bob by X if the net cost of X to Alice is outweighed by the benefits of Bob 'believing' A, and X causes Bob to 'believe' A even when Bob takes in to account that Alice wants him to 'believe' A." (note 'believe' A means 'act as if A were true'.)
Useless to whom?
Newton was respected for coming up with useful theories and natural science, not just pure philosophy or non-applied math. You could maybe argue that his work was rarely useful to him personally, so he only did it as "signalling" to get respect from others to whom it was useful. But under that theory, any division of labor where people are paid money for their work which is only useful to others would be called "signalling".
That's true: that Newton came up with good theories in the past is evidence he'll come up with more good theories in the future. It signals his quality as a scientist.
But this is a good thing (as opposed to the usual negative implied connotations of "mere signalling"). And the reason it's a good thing is that his scientific work was actually useful, so it's a good thing others could identify this and reward him to make him do more useful work.
That's just saying "people will choose to signal if benefits exceed costs". It's true, but it doesn't explain to me the original statement:
Which says "signalling' in this instance is something that motivates people in the absence of things being useful in their own right.
Using my theory of planetary motion, I will be able to STOP THE EARTH FROM CRASHING INTO THE SUN.
But you killed the gnomes and the fairies!
Because they did not obey my scientific theories, they went on to CRASH INTO THE SUN!
Even without a coherent theory of planetary motion, we can assign a very low probabiliy to the earth crashing into the sun simply on the basis that it hasn't yet.
...that is exactly the sort of judgment which requires some sort of theory. Every day, trillions of things happen which have never happened before. Never in the history of the universe has this comment been posted to LW!
Well, a couple days ago, we could reasonably have assigned a pretty low probability to that exact post being made today.
New things happen all the time, but without a model, we can't assign much likelihood to any specific new thing happening at any particular time.
Without some kind of model, you can't assign any probabilities period (.)
I don't see this in other comment responses, but it seemed obvious to me: A better grasp of and getting closer to understanding fundamental physics?
Possibly also a better ability to read messages sent from the Heavens? Comparisons between the motions of celestial versus earthly bodies? Perhaps even insights as to how to imbue earthly objects with some celestial motion properties, so as to gain better control on the motion of objects in various other domains (e.g. ballistics, architecture, navigation)? If what moves the celestial objects can be harnessed, perhaps a new type of vessel that could travel through the land, air or aethers?
All of these are things that, if I put myself in the frame of mind of a 17th-cent' philosopher / scholar, would be very pertinent and seem like intuitively obvious possibilities as to what might come from studying the properties and regularities of Celestial Things. And I didn't even have to think about it for more than five minutes. They were fiddling with no actual answers and no high school astrophysics for lifetimes, or large parts thereof.
It goes deeper than analyzing planetary motion. There was no reason I can think for people to keep close track of anything but the sun and the moon, but if there hadn't been good records for the planets, the laws of planetary motion couldn't have been discovered.