= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
g_pepper comments on Rationality Quotes May 2016 - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (46)
Barry Allen in Vanishing into Things
I just now looked up Vanishing into Things on Amazon and it looks quite interesting. Have you read the book in its entirety? What are your thoughts about it?
I haven't yet finished it.
I bring it up because many people here still equate knowledge with justified truth and see it as only one form of knowledge.
Being clear about the fact that there are different ways of knowing is very important for the quest of rationality. The example of Chinese philosophy then is relatively benign and doesn't trigger mindkilling reflexes they way that postcolonial thought does.
The Chinese also actually act based on their idea of knowledge with makes it more believable. As China becomes culturally more influential it's also useful to understand their thought better.
The book sounds interesting. When I read your quote from the book, I initially misinterpreted it as a anti-philosophy comment of the sort one occasionally encounters but after reading the blurb for the book on Amazon, realized the quote was contrasting Eastern vs Western thought.
One thing I am curious about - if the Eastern mode of thought is really superior to the Western mode of thought for "understanding the contribution knowledge makes to the technical accomplishment of our civilization", how does the author explain the fact that the scientific method, the industrial revolution, and (to use his words), "the multiplicity of artifactual interfaces in a global technoscientific economy" grew out of the Western intellectual tradition?
However, I do think that there are interesting differences between the traditional Eastern way of thinking and the traditional Western way of thinking, and that each has its unique strengths. An interesting book on this topic is The Geography of Thought by Richard Nisbett; it points out the differences between Eastern and Western thought without really painting one as "better" than the other. Note that Nisbett's book is aimed at a general audience whereas I suspect that Allen's may be aimed at an academic audience.
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about Allen's book once you've finished reading it. I'm putting it on my "to read" list, but I'm not sure when I'll get to it.
Whether the industrial revolution came out of the intellectual tradition is up for debate. If you take Henry Ford as of of the core people of the industrial revolution, Ford didn't go to university. I think most of the knowledge that made Ford successful wasn't about him believing in justified true statements but of more implicit nature.
The people who invented the steam engine also didn't have university degrees. They were rather tradesman who relied on mechanical skill for their inventions. Western intellectuals didn't concerns themselves with optimal systems of pumping water out of mines like Thomas Newcomen did.
The Industrial Revolution was pretty much complete decades before Henry Ford was born. Newcomen is much more to the point.
I don't think that it makes sense to see all Western archievements as coming out of the Western analytical mindset. Western society has always been diverse and contained people with different mindsets.
The Greek had steam engines before the invention of the modern scientific method, so I don't see how the modern scientific method was a requirement for the invention of steam engines.
I do grant that the scientific method has important effect on the way our modern technology works, but I think you get into problems when you start to claim that all of our modern technology is due to the scientific method and analytic thinking.
Actually, you brought the invention of the steam engine into the conversation.
And, while the Greeks invented a rudimentary steam engine, the ancient Greek engine was not really of any practical use. Developing a commercially viable steam engine did not occur until much later. Developing a steam engine that could be used reliably, safely and efficiently for transportation, etc., required scientific knowledge of thermodynamics, behavior of gases, metallurgy, etc.
Which is what led to my question about why the author thinks that the Eastern mode of thought is superior to the Western mode of thought for "understanding the contribution knowledge makes to the technical accomplishment of our civilization". When I phrased the question, I did not mean it in an argumentative sense, I actually meant I am interested to hear his thoughts on the subject - which is one of the reasons I intend to read the book.
I spoke about the invention of the steam engine as a means for pumping water out of mines. The Greeks never tried to use it for that purpose.
I don't think that Thomas Newcomen had much scientific knowledge of thermodynamics. Most of thermodynamics developed after there were already commercial steam engines.
I think knowledge about metallurgy at the time wasn't mainly scientific but based on trades. You had smiths who learned it by being smiths and who then passed it down to an apprentice.
True, but you and two other people pointed out that the Greeks had invented the steam engine as if that somehow invalidated something that I had said.
This is not really true. Scientific work in the area of thermodynamics had been done in the 17th century by Denis Papin, Otto von Guericke , Robert Boyle, Thomas Savery and others. Some of this work was directly applicable to steam engines.
I think it is likely that Newcomen was familiar with Savery's earlier work on steam engines, at a minimum. And, whereas you are focused on the invention (or reinvention, in Newcomen's case) of the steam engine, I think that the ongoing development of the steam engine is at least as relevant. The development of the steam engine continued well past then end of Newcomen's life - the late 18th century engines and the 19th century steam engines used on trains, ships and in industry were much improved over the versions produced by Newcomen - and many of these improvements came about from scientific knowledge in the areas of gas laws, thermodynamics, etc.
This is largely true, particularly in the 18th century. But as noted above, the steam engine continued to be developed and improved throughout the 19th century. Some of these improvements were possible by improved materials (metals), and by the latter half of the 19th century, metallurgy was becoming more scientific, particularly with regard to improvements in steel production.
19th century steel manufacturing also gave a big boost to the steam engine industry in an indirect manner - quality steel greatly improved the strength and longevity of railroad tracks and trestles, leading to increased use of rail and increased demands for more powerful and more efficient steam engines. Since the quote that started this conversation was about the "technical accomplishment of our civilization" and "the ingenuity of the inventions, the range and density of technical mediation, the multiplicity of artifactual interfaces in a global technoscientific economy", I think that it is useful to look at how various industries (such as the steel and railroad industry) affected the later development of the steam engine rather than focusing exclusively on its early commercialization by Newcomen.
I agree with your general point. A lot of science was needed to create the transistor. But in this particular case, the design of Newcomen's engine is very simple, needs no science beyond the notion of 'hot water expands', and could certainly be comprehended and built by the ancient Greeks and Romans. Of course, it may be that the ancients didn't use (or use up) enough coal to be in need of a mine water pumping solution, and a steam locomotive is rather more complex.