For all the wierd general threads going on at the moment, I'm sure I saw a comment/question from MSimon on this matter but for the life of me I can't sort the chaff from the wheat on this site at the moment.
Anyway, I'm on my 'usual' soap-box here:
The basic principle of left-wing socialists is to get all the population to the same level. To my mind, that must mean bringing everything/one down to the lowest common multiple. This, indeed, has been taken to its full conclusion in some situations, from the scandinavian socailist countries where there is an effective social exclusion of anyone who tries to make out they are superior, to the soviets where they imprison them, to extremists like Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge who just killed anyone slightly more educated than a candle stick.
The basic principle of right-wing politics is that those who might be able to excel should be allowed to to do, at the disbenefit of others if necessary.
It is self-evident, then, that engineers may appear "right wing"because they seek to evolve and develop technologies that are new, fantastical, unbelievable, immense, and they have a natural expectation that some funds will be given to that venture rather than feeding some starving person who can't look after themselves - because in the long run the evolution and development of technology is the best way to fix such sub-standards and health deficits.
The development of technology doesn't seek to re-balance inequitibility like left wing politics, it simply offers a chance for the whole spectrum of social standing to benefit. Look at it this way, when the worst complaint that 'the poor' can make gets to the point that their biggest complaint is they can't afford to fix their broken fridge and their beer is warm when they come to watch some sport on telly - hey, get things into perspective here!!!... Technology and industry has, quite literally, already taken them out of 'the gutter'. Go look in a country that is not so industrially developed and see the people who do literally live (and die) in the gutter. It is also often the place that newborn babies are tossed when they cannot afford their upkeep, or that they are born female instead of male under oppresive socialist population controls (so as to 'normalise' society).
All good engineers should be right-wing; they are more interested in incrementing the excellent that the mediocre. But the label is unfair because they just aren't thinking about the lower end of the scale. Don't bother them with such trivial thoughts, they're busy dragging the whole of society along by the scruff of the neck to better things and if dragging someone from the 'head' end causes a few scuffed shoes, then sobeit. Better than being dragged by the feet.
Engineers are intrinsically 'right-wing'.
Engineers tend to be "right-wing" because they actually make things. making things represents economic productivity which is inherently economically "conservative".
However, many scientists are actually liberal-left. Thats because they make their living off of grant money they receive from the federal government and their productivity is measured in the number of peer-reviewed papers that they write. This is why you have boondoggles like NASA and the Tokamak, the former never having developed low-cost space access and the latter not having delivered low-cost fusion power. Lately, its even worse with stuff like AGW research. At least NASA and the Tokamak were intended to produce something of value. All AGW is for is to restrictive the creating economic productive efforts of others. It is parasitism, plain and simple.
However, many scientists are actually liberal-left. Thats because they make their living off of grant money they receive from the federal government and their productivity is measured in the number of peer-reviewed papers that they write. This is why you have boondoggles like NASA and the Tokamak, the former never having developed low-cost space access and the latter not having delivered low-cost fusion power. Lately, its even worse with stuff like AGW research. At least NASA and the Tokamak were intended to produce something of value. All AGW is for is to restrictive the creating economic productive efforts of others. It is parasitism, plain and simple.
I think it is a relevant commentary on the distinctions of scientists and engineers. I would say there may be perverse incentives, though: Perhaps 'scientists' are chosen to be so by socialist-minded processes, rather than those who-would-be-scientists being intrinsically right wing. If we look at those who might be 'self-selecting' scientists, I would hazard a guess they have what might be deemed right wing tendencies, but the socialist-institutions that choose not to employ them as scientists instead call them 'mavericks', or other such prejorative descriptors, and take active steps to have them ignored.
I think it is a very important point you indirectly raise; the socialist impact on science is the cause of its current decline, through the attempt to manipulate what science concludes in favour of socialist outcomes. Look no further than 'main-stream fusion research' or AGW!
Some scientific outcomes are so feared that no-one dare even mention their name: Take eugenics, for example. To deny eugenics is to deny Darwinian evolution itself, but it is favourable for one not to align oneself with any discussion whatsoever on the subject it in the current western culture for fear of outright rejection by 'the community' as a pariah.
It is curious, though, that many famous scientists, several being Nobel prize winners, do do just this and at the end of their careers, knowing they are backed up by their own accomplishments, simply come outright with supporting views on the negative impact of certain genetic traits cascading through the population.
I think it is a very important point you indirectly raise; the socialist impact on science is the cause of its current decline, through the attempt to manipulate what science concludes in favour of socialist outcomes. Look no further than 'main-stream fusion research' or AGW!
Some scientific outcomes are so feared that no-one dare even mention their name: Take eugenics, for example. To deny eugenics is to deny Darwinian evolution itself, but it is favourable for one not to align oneself with any discussion whatsoever on the subject it in the current western culture for fear of outright rejection by 'the community' as a pariah.
It is curious, though, that many famous scientists, several being Nobel prize winners, do do just this and at the end of their careers, knowing they are backed up by their own accomplishments, simply come outright with supporting views on the negative impact of certain genetic traits cascading through the population.
I thought that this is exactly what GW Bush was thinking, no? Please correct my ignorance where in error...DavidWillard wrote: If they call Disneyland heretical and morally corrupt, and burn it to the ground, then send in the troops and clean the idiots out before the take us back to the Dark Ages where tyranny and local despot rule applies.
-
CaptainBeowulf
- Posts: 498
- Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:35 am
Chris, I think you're saying that right-wingers want to grow the size of the overall economic pie by leveraging the dynamism of capitalism to create new technology and new industries. Left-wingers think the size of the pie is set, and just want to slice it up differently, thereby killing the golden goose of the profit motive. I'd agree with that.
This doesn't describe all conservatives and all lefties. There are forward thinking lefties who want to invest heavily in new technology. There are people on the right wing who think "greed is good" and just look to make a profit in the immediate future without a long-term strategic plan. Some of the people involved in the recent banking crisis were probably amongst that group. The world isn't perfect. However, I think you've described most of the right-wingers here.
I think this is reflected in the AGW debate. Lefties have decided that "OMG there's a crisis now!" and talk about "sustainable development" which really means "the pie can't grow anymore". The technological solutions they propose, like wind turbines and solar panels, aren't very imaginative and don't really solve the problem. The people on the right wing look and say there are still too many holes in the science to say there is a crisis is right now. Maybe there will be one, if carbon accelerates the next warming cycle too much (whether it's solar driven, ocean cycle driven, or a combination of various drivers). Right now is the opportunity to use capitalism to drive new research. Then, we will hopefully get Polywell or FRCs or something like that, better batteries, better solar panels etc. When that tech is actually cost-competitive with existing tech, it will naturally start to take over, without a massive "forced" dislocation of the economy.
This doesn't describe all conservatives and all lefties. There are forward thinking lefties who want to invest heavily in new technology. There are people on the right wing who think "greed is good" and just look to make a profit in the immediate future without a long-term strategic plan. Some of the people involved in the recent banking crisis were probably amongst that group. The world isn't perfect. However, I think you've described most of the right-wingers here.
I think this is reflected in the AGW debate. Lefties have decided that "OMG there's a crisis now!" and talk about "sustainable development" which really means "the pie can't grow anymore". The technological solutions they propose, like wind turbines and solar panels, aren't very imaginative and don't really solve the problem. The people on the right wing look and say there are still too many holes in the science to say there is a crisis is right now. Maybe there will be one, if carbon accelerates the next warming cycle too much (whether it's solar driven, ocean cycle driven, or a combination of various drivers). Right now is the opportunity to use capitalism to drive new research. Then, we will hopefully get Polywell or FRCs or something like that, better batteries, better solar panels etc. When that tech is actually cost-competitive with existing tech, it will naturally start to take over, without a massive "forced" dislocation of the economy.
-
Josh Cryer
- Posts: 526
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am
Engineers are collectivists, scientists are individualists.
Engineers rely on others doing research to get things done.
Scientists use the research of others to do more research, but if the research doesn't exist, they do it themselves.
Engineers work on things in our daily life, things that are usually useful and can put lives in jeopardy, so they must have the collective good at heart (unless they are evil or have bad ideas; though they can still convince themselves those ideas are good).
Scientists research what they want just because they have curiosity about how something works, they sometimes even have no regard for what engineers or politicians or policymakers do with their research (see: Atom Bomb, genetic engineering, etc, etc).
Engineers affect the environment, and must do so in a way that is part and parcel to the public good. They don't build a bridge, for instance, unless the public good deems it necessary or desirable.
Scientists observe the environment, and while some observations can lead to things that affect the environment, there is no real onus on a scientist to cede to the public good.
This is precisely why engineers, collectivists, are against scientists discussing AGW in a negative light, because scientists are not usually part of the policy debate. If public policy accepted what scientists were saying, it would put engineers in a more difficult position, since they must do what they were doing before, plus whatever is necessary to mitigate the effects.
Change doesn't negatively impact scientists in the same way, because they adapt and keep doing their research, there's no onus on them to change or do anything different (unless you're a bad scientist, but the peer review will weed them out or compel them to improve).
Engineers rely on others doing research to get things done.
Scientists use the research of others to do more research, but if the research doesn't exist, they do it themselves.
Engineers work on things in our daily life, things that are usually useful and can put lives in jeopardy, so they must have the collective good at heart (unless they are evil or have bad ideas; though they can still convince themselves those ideas are good).
Scientists research what they want just because they have curiosity about how something works, they sometimes even have no regard for what engineers or politicians or policymakers do with their research (see: Atom Bomb, genetic engineering, etc, etc).
Engineers affect the environment, and must do so in a way that is part and parcel to the public good. They don't build a bridge, for instance, unless the public good deems it necessary or desirable.
Scientists observe the environment, and while some observations can lead to things that affect the environment, there is no real onus on a scientist to cede to the public good.
This is precisely why engineers, collectivists, are against scientists discussing AGW in a negative light, because scientists are not usually part of the policy debate. If public policy accepted what scientists were saying, it would put engineers in a more difficult position, since they must do what they were doing before, plus whatever is necessary to mitigate the effects.
Change doesn't negatively impact scientists in the same way, because they adapt and keep doing their research, there's no onus on them to change or do anything different (unless you're a bad scientist, but the peer review will weed them out or compel them to improve).
Science is what we have learned about how not to fool ourselves about the way the world is.
Partly agree. On the whole you're right, but the exceptional engineers are the exceptions to this.Josh Cryer wrote:Engineers are collectivists, scientists are individualists.
Disagree. But again, perhaps you are right in regards the majority of output from engineering. The thing is; engineers turn out stuff prodigiously, whereas scientists seem to get away with doing little. So percentagewise, a large fraction of what scientists do is research whereas percentagewise the research engineers do is tiny. But the total research engineers do is enormous, it is simply that most of it wasn't planned that they were doing research they just happen to figure stuff out whilst trying to solve a problem! Not that much difference to 'science' - OK, so 'scientists' start out trying to find something they don't know but most science still has them finding more that they weren't looking for in the first place, just the same as engineers!!Josh Cryer wrote: Engineers rely on others doing research to get things done.
But, again, this brings us back to the point I was making - in these socialist times we find ourselves, to gain a research budget at all (for the vast majority of funding opportunities) you have to pitch a project proposal that
a) has 'a good chance of success' [thus undermining the nature of the 'scientific method', namely disproving the null hypothesis], and
b) is framed in a way that addresses what the socialist politicians believe are the most pressing issues of the day.
So I think your pitch at scientists having some form of independence of investigation is so undermined as to be a worthless observation [in these particular socialist times we live]. In reality the most independent research is borne from engineering solutions because off-shoot findings are just a nice-to-have on top of the actual job being done at the time, so are free of obligations to answer any political issues at all.
I agree there was once a time when the ingenious exploitation of what the universe offers us humans covered both science and engineering. It is the politicos with their trophy projects that has perverted that 18th century model.Skipjack wrote:I dont separate science and engineering as strictly as other people do. For me one can not exist without the other.
I've always wondered what Islam would look without the sack of Baghdad. The Abbasids were relatively liberal.What if Walt Disney had hired Farnsworth back in the 50-60's, combined him with Buzzard and some brighties from NASA. Then would be parking Disneyland in Baghdad and Tehran by now? Would the Kurds need not to worry about restoring Kurdistan involving pushing on 5 international borders?
The poor Kurds. They greeted us as liberators. They're more pro-America than America. And they still have very little prospect of an independent homeland.
Engineers are the grey tribe.
http://pajamasmedia.com/ejectejecteject ... /tribes-2/
Then, in the other corner, there is the Grey Tribe – the grey of reinforced concrete. This is a Tribe where emotion is repressed because Emotion Clouds Judgment. This is the world of Quadratic Equations and Stress Risers and Loads Torsional, Compressive and Tensile, a place where Reality Can Ruin Your Best Day, the place where Murphy mercilessly picks off the Weak and the Incompetent, where the Speed Limit is 186,282.36 mph, where every bridge has a Failure Load and levees come in 50 year, 100 year and 1000 Year Flood Flavors.
The Grey Tribe motto is, near as I can tell, THINGS BREAK SOMETIMES AND PLEASE DON’T LET IT BE MY BRIDGE.
That's quite some diatribe! [pun intended] Take me 3 days to read that at my engineer's reading rate.TallDave wrote:
Engineers are the grey tribe.
http://pajamasmedia.com/ejectejecteject ... /tribes-2/
Unfortunately, Murphy does the opposite and harrasses the competent who have got everything just right and perfect! It's natural events that pick of the weak and incompetent - if only that were always the case! Sigh!......the place where Murphy mercilessly picks off the Weak and the Incompetent