Recently, I’ve been thinking about the division between science and engineering. As an exercise, you may wish to come up with your own definition before seeing mine.
I think most people give a definition something like this:
Science seeks to improve our understanding of the world. Engineering applies that understanding to control the world and accomplish things in it.
However, this is not really true when you think about it.
It creates the strange implication that engineers depend on scientists for knowledge. In reality, it’s probably fair to say that engineering is older than science, and that much of the organized knowledge which engineers rely on does not originate from an organized activity of science, but rather from engineering itself.
I recently learned that the romans had a concept of progress tied to technology, and debated issues related to this. Seneca:
Nay, the sort of men who discover such things are the sort of men who are busied with them…. The hammer [and] the tongs… were both invented by some man whose mind was nimble and keen, but not great or exalted; and the same holds true of any other discovery which can only be made by means of a bent body and of a mind whose gaze is upon the ground….
Seneca acknowledges the idea that technological progress has improved Roman lives, but is nonetheless downright insulting in his description of those who engage in it. Here’s more from later in the same passage:
We know that certain devices have come to light only within our own memory—such as the use of windows which admit the clear light through transparent tiles, and such as the vaulted baths, with pipes let into their walls for the purpose of diffusing the heat which maintains an even temperature in their lowest as well as in their highest spaces. Why need I mention the marble with which our temples and our private houses are resplendent? Or the rounded and polished masses of stone by means of which we erect colonnades and buildings roomy enough for nations? Or our signs for whole words, which enable us to take down a speech, however rapidly uttered, matching speed of tongue by speed of hand? All this sort of thing has been devised by the lowest grade of slaves.
Wisdom’s seat is higher; she trains not the hands, but is mistress of our minds…
Seneca also argues that all this technology is ultimately bad for us; the “improvements” to life are seen as ultimately superficial. Seneca is basically your standard Luddite. But that’s not my point.
Seneca, like modern children, was part of an education system which favored book-learning over life experience. I’m guessing that Seneca thought poetry more important than plows, philosophy better than running water, and so on.
The French aristocracy were crowded into the Palace of Versailles for much the same reason that children are crowded into schools: the King wanted to be able to keep an eye on them, control their preferences rather than only their behavior, keep them in line. I imagine Versailles was much like a modern high school in terms of the cliques and drama.
I’ve noticed a tendency, in myself, to consider engineering low-class. I would rather click on a random math video on youtube, rather than a video detailing the operation of some useful industrial machine. “Making things” feels low class (unless it’s done by hand, or with some new shiny innovation, or something else to spice it up). Am I making a mistake similar to Seneca?
I watch the math video (I tell myself) because I’m trying to do new things, not old things. The machine would be useful if I were going into business as a manufacturer, but that’s not my priority. I’m trying to solve AI alignment. The math video has a higher chance of containing some generalizable trick which may help me.
I feel kinship with a long line of philosophers who wanted to figure out the correct rules of reasoning. Plato thought this was so important that the philosophers should be put in charge; the ideal king is a philosopher-king, educated in proper thinking.
I think maybe this project has succeeded more than it has failed, with all the good and bad consequences that come along with this.
My thesis is that there’ve been two semi-coherent (tho partially overlapping) groups: the academics (scientists, philosophers, etc), and the engineers (tradespeople, practitioners of crafts, builders, etc). These groups have developed different valuable kinds of knowledge. The engineers develop practical knowledge, based on more direct experience, and of more direct economic value (and usually, greater economic value). The academics develop intellectual knowledge, based more on extrapolation, and therefore more heavily dependent on priors.
I think maybe this is somehow about the principle-agent problem. In an engineering-heavy context, you know expertise because you see results. In academic culture, it is very difficult to discern goodness; it involves expert skill. Only scientists can judge scientists. Similarly, how can you judge a teacher? The sponsors of academics mostly have to rely on academic consensus about the quality of academics. And grades are, of course, the output of tests devised by academics for academics.
The academics have a higher tendency to be plugged into the social elite, influenced by social fashions, etc. Science is usually state-sponsored. Schools are usually heavily plugged into the state, and schooling has traditionally been a sign of high status. ‘Working with your hands’ is traditionally low-status. I take this as evidence that academia won some sort of status competition over an alternate life-path, that of learning a trade.
I value the academic way of life. I feel glad that our society is a highly-educated one. I prefer highly-educated experts in positions of power.
But when I look at the “Seven Lessons Taught in School” essay which you began with, and at your post, I see the negative consequences of an academic approach to life being described.
Anyway, obviously these are super crude clusters, and overall this is probably a pretty bad model of why anything happens. Just some things I’ve been thinking about.
This will tie in to the main subject, I promise.
Recently, I’ve been thinking about the division between science and engineering. As an exercise, you may wish to come up with your own definition before seeing mine.
I think most people give a definition something like this:
Science seeks to improve our understanding of the world. Engineering applies that understanding to control the world and accomplish things in it.
However, this is not really true when you think about it.
It creates the strange implication that engineers depend on scientists for knowledge. In reality, it’s probably fair to say that engineering is older than science, and that much of the organized knowledge which engineers rely on does not originate from an organized activity of science, but rather from engineering itself.
I recently learned that the romans had a concept of progress tied to technology, and debated issues related to this. Seneca:
Seneca acknowledges the idea that technological progress has improved Roman lives, but is nonetheless downright insulting in his description of those who engage in it. Here’s more from later in the same passage:
Seneca also argues that all this technology is ultimately bad for us; the “improvements” to life are seen as ultimately superficial. Seneca is basically your standard Luddite. But that’s not my point.
Seneca, like modern children, was part of an education system which favored book-learning over life experience. I’m guessing that Seneca thought poetry more important than plows, philosophy better than running water, and so on.
The French aristocracy were crowded into the Palace of Versailles for much the same reason that children are crowded into schools: the King wanted to be able to keep an eye on them, control their preferences rather than only their behavior, keep them in line. I imagine Versailles was much like a modern high school in terms of the cliques and drama.
I’ve noticed a tendency, in myself, to consider engineering low-class. I would rather click on a random math video on youtube, rather than a video detailing the operation of some useful industrial machine. “Making things” feels low class (unless it’s done by hand, or with some new shiny innovation, or something else to spice it up). Am I making a mistake similar to Seneca?
I watch the math video (I tell myself) because I’m trying to do new things, not old things. The machine would be useful if I were going into business as a manufacturer, but that’s not my priority. I’m trying to solve AI alignment. The math video has a higher chance of containing some generalizable trick which may help me.
I feel kinship with a long line of philosophers who wanted to figure out the correct rules of reasoning. Plato thought this was so important that the philosophers should be put in charge; the ideal king is a philosopher-king, educated in proper thinking.
I think maybe this project has succeeded more than it has failed, with all the good and bad consequences that come along with this.
My thesis is that there’ve been two semi-coherent (tho partially overlapping) groups: the academics (scientists, philosophers, etc), and the engineers (tradespeople, practitioners of crafts, builders, etc). These groups have developed different valuable kinds of knowledge. The engineers develop practical knowledge, based on more direct experience, and of more direct economic value (and usually, greater economic value). The academics develop intellectual knowledge, based more on extrapolation, and therefore more heavily dependent on priors.
I think maybe this is somehow about the principle-agent problem. In an engineering-heavy context, you know expertise because you see results. In academic culture, it is very difficult to discern goodness; it involves expert skill. Only scientists can judge scientists. Similarly, how can you judge a teacher? The sponsors of academics mostly have to rely on academic consensus about the quality of academics. And grades are, of course, the output of tests devised by academics for academics.
The academics have a higher tendency to be plugged into the social elite, influenced by social fashions, etc. Science is usually state-sponsored. Schools are usually heavily plugged into the state, and schooling has traditionally been a sign of high status. ‘Working with your hands’ is traditionally low-status. I take this as evidence that academia won some sort of status competition over an alternate life-path, that of learning a trade.
I value the academic way of life. I feel glad that our society is a highly-educated one. I prefer highly-educated experts in positions of power.
But when I look at the “Seven Lessons Taught in School” essay which you began with, and at your post, I see the negative consequences of an academic approach to life being described.
Anyway, obviously these are super crude clusters, and overall this is probably a pretty bad model of why anything happens. Just some things I’ve been thinking about.