[ben_w]

I have no idea what rhetorical point you’re trying to make with a reference to… Icarus? Especially as small-r rationality (i.e. science and statistics) is how we went from manned flight being only a myth, to walking on the moon.

[matthewdgreen]

I was just skimming the thread and I understood the point. A little heavyhanded maybe, but not hard to parse.

[constantcrying]

>I have no idea what rhetorical point you’re trying to make with a reference to… Icarus?

Deadalus was a great inventor and scientist. When imprisoned he devises a means for him and his son to escape, in fact he realizes one of mans greatest achievements, flight. While he is able to control his invention and makes good use out of it (making sure to avoid both extremes), his son can neither control himself nor the technology given to him. In the desire to reach ever greater heights he is ultimately destroyed.

The point is (or at least the one which is so easily read into the story) that all technology is dangerous and that great care needs to be put into how we make use of it.

The idea of using statistics and quantitative methods of the social sciences to devise the best way for humans to live is Icarus grasping at the sun. Very smart people have found new ideas, novel methods and all the mathematics to answer one of mankinds greatest question, if we let them use it a great future awaits. This already was the folly of "scientific socialism", and your new attempt at it will land you in the Icarian see, just like last time.

[ben_w]

> scientific socialism

But it’s also how capitalist governments work. And businesses. And every scientific advancement, including how we decided which of the covid vaccines to give the OK to and which ones to reject. It’s also how the chemistry of the synthetic fibres in your clothes and the plastic in your computer were learned, how the machines which made each component of the latter and assembled them into the finished products became reliable enough. It’s how we even know there’s a rise in obesity levels, how we learned which things are good SSRIs and which have unfortunate side effects, how we learned not to let everyone have as much alcohol as they (or their bartender) felt like, and why various countries allow tobacco to be sold but only with graphic depictions of the consequences (consequences which we only know because of statistics and science). Online advertising is nothing but statistical aggregations; algorithmic timelines and personalised search results and recommend products/content are basically the exact same statistics but used to sell the recommender itself rather than a 3rd party. The politicians in a democracy also do statistics to figure out how well they’re selling their ideas and if they need to change tactics or entirely switch their message (or even messenger).

And, as I said, literal flight, that’s also science and statistics.

[constantcrying]

And?

A chainsaw can be used for marvelous things, the wood for your house or your furniture. It can be used to help people in need, removing objects trapping them. Even to put out fires in roofs. There are thousands of great uses for chainsaws. Yet using it against a human will lead to a catastrophe. It is a mistake you do not want to make once. Making it twice should ve unthinkable.

Just because a tool is effective in situation A does not mean it is effective in situation B. We tried your idea and it resulted in a human catastrophe.

[ben_w]

Is this what the kids these days are calling “motte-and-bailey”?

[constantcrying]

No, it is using the awesome powers of science, rationality, mathematics and logic, to deduce that an idea which already has led to disaster, has a very significant risk to lead to disaster again.