You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Gunnar_Zarncke comments on Would you notice if science died? - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: Douglas_Knight 08 March 2016 04:04AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (40)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Lumifer 08 March 2016 04:35:43PM *  4 points [-]

First, I think that the chain looks like this: science produces theories/concepts/explanations/recipes, then engineering takes them and makes practical products on that basis, and then people use these products. So if science stalls, the pipeline will be empty and, basically, there will be nothing much for engineering to do except polish the existing products.

Second, looking at history is a bit iffy at the moment -- the reason is speed of progress. In our times (technological) progress is very very fast by historical standards. That makes it easy to notice if science dies. But that does not apply to, say, the Middle Ages when the progress was so slow it took many generations to produce an appreciable change. During one lifetime things (technologically) did not change much if at all.

Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 08 March 2016 08:41:10PM 2 points [-]

But if we run with the abstraction that science is input to engineering (and engineering is description of production (processes)) then it could very well be that all the technological progress we see could result from a very long back-log created by earlier science for engineering to catch up to and it could very well be that science has stalled to produce results (at least those that can be used as input to engineering) without us noticing anything wrong just looking at new products. Could.

Comment author: Lumifer 08 March 2016 08:57:16PM 0 points [-]

Could.

Yes, and..? I am not sure what point are you making.

Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 09 March 2016 07:22:48PM 1 point [-]

That we have only tentative evidence that science hasn't stalled from engineering productiveness.

Comment author: Lumifer 09 March 2016 08:07:31PM 0 points [-]

Why would you care about that when you can go and look at science directly, without trying to proxy it with engineering success?

Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 09 March 2016 08:11:19PM 1 point [-]

When you can reliably determine whether science has stalled then this argument isn't relevant. Some might disagree on that. I point out that in absence of evidence of science stalling or not we can't rely on current engineering output as a proxy. That's all.