“Valuing practicality over theory” is usually called “science”.
The greater the inferential distances, the less it seems so. What exactly is the practical aspect of string theory? On the other hand, microwave is pretty useful, but somehow it doesn’t feel scientific. It’s just a technical thing.
It’s like the specialization is too extreme for our intuitions today. It used to be:
Average people who use stuff.
Smart people who do science and create stuff.
But these days it’s more like:
Average people who use stuff.
Skilled people who create stuff.
Smart people who do science… which seems kinda unrelated to the stuff.
The romantic science types like MacGyver or the mad scientists (I’m sure there are many good examples, but they don’t come to my mind right now) are people who study science and then apply it. But in real life, the people who create science, and the people who apply it are not the same.
For example, I can create computer programs, but I never invented anything scientific in computer science. And then there are people who have PhD’s in computer science and publish in peer-reviewed journals, but probably couldn’t make a decent text editor. The link between the top science and doing cool stuff is lost. Einstein can say some weird things about the space-time, but unless he had the Nobel price he couldn’t even become rich from this knowledge. He can’t use his space-time knowledge to build a spaceship or a teleport in his garage. He doesn’t have the power in his hands. A carpenter can make you a new table, but Einstein can’t do anything for you directly.
We don’t see the science directly translated to power, by the scientists. Eisteins are smart, but Zuckerbergs are rich. And even that’s awesome, because Zuckerberg at least is a programmer. It could be worse… you could have a bunch of poorly paid smart programmers (preferably working remotely from some third-world country) making some IT-illiterate boss rich.
The greater the inferential distances, the less it seems so. What exactly is the practical aspect of string theory? On the other hand, microwave is pretty useful, but somehow it doesn’t feel scientific. It’s just a technical thing.
It’s like the specialization is too extreme for our intuitions today. It used to be:
Average people who use stuff.
Smart people who do science and create stuff.
But these days it’s more like:
Average people who use stuff.
Skilled people who create stuff.
Smart people who do science… which seems kinda unrelated to the stuff.
The romantic science types like MacGyver or the mad scientists (I’m sure there are many good examples, but they don’t come to my mind right now) are people who study science and then apply it. But in real life, the people who create science, and the people who apply it are not the same.
For example, I can create computer programs, but I never invented anything scientific in computer science. And then there are people who have PhD’s in computer science and publish in peer-reviewed journals, but probably couldn’t make a decent text editor. The link between the top science and doing cool stuff is lost. Einstein can say some weird things about the space-time, but unless he had the Nobel price he couldn’t even become rich from this knowledge. He can’t use his space-time knowledge to build a spaceship or a teleport in his garage. He doesn’t have the power in his hands. A carpenter can make you a new table, but Einstein can’t do anything for you directly.
We don’t see the science directly translated to power, by the scientists. Eisteins are smart, but Zuckerbergs are rich. And even that’s awesome, because Zuckerberg at least is a programmer. It could be worse… you could have a bunch of poorly paid smart programmers (preferably working remotely from some third-world country) making some IT-illiterate boss rich.