they talk about how things “should” be, but completely forget that talking about “should” has to ground out in actions in order to be useful
An idea doesn’t have to be useful in order to be a thing to talk about. So when people talk about an apparently useless idea, it doesn’t follow that that they forgot that it’s not useful.
It does not necessarily follow, but I do think that’s usually what happens in practice. Arguing about what’s “good” or what “should” be scratches our political itches well, so it ends up feeling important to argue about these things, even when it grounds out in nothing.
This plays the same role as basic research, ideas that can be developed but haven’t found even an inkling of their potential practical applications. An error would be thinking that they are going to be immediately useful, but that shouldn’t be a strong argument against developing them, and there should be no certainty that their very indirect use won’t end up crucial at some point in the distant future.
I agree with this in principle, and it certainly applies in some cases. But most of the time, people do not argue about what “should” happen in hopes that it will someday lead to concrete action through not-yet-clear mechanisms. People argue about what “should” happen in order to signal tribal allegiances, or sound virtuous.
Scientists doing basic research also mostly aren’t motivated by the hope that it will someday lead to practical applications. When there is confusion or uncertainty about a salient phenomenon that can be clarified with further research, that is enough. Incidentally, it is virtuous and signals tribal allegiance to that field of research. Some of the researchers are going to be motivated by that.
An idea doesn’t have to be useful in order to be a thing to talk about. So when people talk about an apparently useless idea, it doesn’t follow that that they forgot that it’s not useful.
It does not necessarily follow, but I do think that’s usually what happens in practice. Arguing about what’s “good” or what “should” be scratches our political itches well, so it ends up feeling important to argue about these things, even when it grounds out in nothing.
This plays the same role as basic research, ideas that can be developed but haven’t found even an inkling of their potential practical applications. An error would be thinking that they are going to be immediately useful, but that shouldn’t be a strong argument against developing them, and there should be no certainty that their very indirect use won’t end up crucial at some point in the distant future.
I agree with this in principle, and it certainly applies in some cases. But most of the time, people do not argue about what “should” happen in hopes that it will someday lead to concrete action through not-yet-clear mechanisms. People argue about what “should” happen in order to signal tribal allegiances, or sound virtuous.
Scientists doing basic research also mostly aren’t motivated by the hope that it will someday lead to practical applications. When there is confusion or uncertainty about a salient phenomenon that can be clarified with further research, that is enough. Incidentally, it is virtuous and signals tribal allegiance to that field of research. Some of the researchers are going to be motivated by that.