Comment

Comment on Hertz, showing the difference between science and engineering

This post tickles a fond memory of mine. I was talking to a right-wing libertarian, and he said there should be no research done ever if it couldn’t prove beforehand its practical applications. I laughed out loud because I knew how incredibly ignorant and ridiculous that statement was. He clearly had never picked up a book on the history of science, on the history of

electromagnetism (it would be a shame if the poor libertarian didn’t have a generator nearby when his eyes were being operated on with LASIK; generators are a technology built by basic research that didn’t have practical applications in mind)
quantum mechanics (it would be a shame if the poor libertarian didn’t have semiconductors in his phone, or if he didn’t have access to lasers for his LASIK surgery, both of which are technologies built by basic research that didn’t have practical applications in mind)
superconductivity (it would be a shame if the poor libertarian didn’t have superconductors for an MRI if he ever needs it, a technology built by basic research that didn’t have practical applications in mind)
radio waves (it would be a shame if the poor libertarian didn’t have radio waves for his phone and computer’s wifi and bluetooth to run his digital business, technologies built by basic research that didn’t have practical applications in mind)
X-rays (it would be a shame if the poor libertarian didn’t have x-rays to check the inside of his body in case something went wrong, a technology built by basic research that didn’t have practical applications in mind)

source

Sort:hotnew top

MyNameIsIgglePiggle@sh.itjust.works ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Bullshit. Lasers have been intended to gain interplanetary superiority since the dawn of time. We just didnt know they could also be used to read music from a circle

source
jsomae@lemmy.ml ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
When talking with libertarians you should keep in mind they have completely different axiomatic values. It is often the case that they understand a certain policy would be on net bad for everyone, they simply don’t care. They are rarely utilitarian about those issues.

I get along much better with libertarians who justify libertarianism with values extrinsic to just “muh freedom” – they are usually much more willing to yield ground in places where I can convince them that a libertarian policy would be net negative, and they have also moved me to be more open minded about some things I thought I would never agree with.

source
- Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  and they have also moved me to be more open minded about some things I thought I would never agree with.
  
  Such as? I’m curious.
  
  source
  - jsomae@lemmy.ml ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Mm for instance, I think in some contexts markets are pretty powerful, like prediction markets are pretty good at predicting things. (Not saying they’re flawless – polymarket likely overpredicted Trump’s victory). Or that benign-looking regulation is frequently detrimental to the public – while not libertarians at all, Abundance makes a good case for repealing a lot of regulation related to construction. Such regulation is often motivated by people who want to preserve the value of their homes, even though on the surface it appears to be about environmental concerns. (Obviously, I think the environment is important, so we shouldn’t just repeal everything. Just that we should be more critical of such regulation.) Another example is how the U.S. banned civilian supersonic aviation in its airspace because of disruptive sonic booms; apparently the technology now exists to keep such booms very quiet, but the regulation persists, because it’s not booms which were banned but instead supersonic speed as a proxy for booms.
    
    source
- InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Those are much rarevin my opinion.
  
  source