[brookst]

The age-old “invention versus innovation” semantic tail chasing.

Some people think applying old concepts to new areas counts as invention, some don’t. Debating the point isn’t useful because there’s no objective truth to get to.

[colechristensen]

>Some people think applying old concepts to new areas counts as invention, some don’t. Debating the point isn’t useful because there’s no objective truth to get to.

This is most of philosophy :) arguing about the definitions of words especially in the edge cases. But it does matter, because how we quantify, reward, and protect "invention" matters, to do that you need an accurate definition, and boring folks to hash over what counts and what doesn't.

Around here people care a lot about patents and what should be patentable, and that really revolves around what is and isn't actual innovation, actual invention. Sometimes a thing is truly new and unique, other times it's a trivial obvious change, most of the time it's ambiguous and having precise language to determine which one and to what degree a thing is, can make all the difference.

[testfrequency]

Side note: I loved the way you worded this.

I don’t know if I’ve ever seen such deliberate “no point as there’s no common objective” written to describe an opposing argument of ideals

[brookst]

Thanks? I’ve learned to check whether an assertion is clearly defined and falsifiable before engaging. Otherwise you get “obviously frobulation is better than defrobrulation”

[mannykannot]

I appreciate where you are coming from, but I'm not willing to say that there is no objective truth to it. Take the triode, for example, or the transistor. I include the latter because while it did something that functionally the triode could also do, it did it by exploiting different physics, and the difference was significant.

[brookst]

Sure, but my point is that for either of those, someone could mount a spirited argument in any of four directions (innovation / invention x yes / no) and it’s all just semantics.

We humans desperately want binary definitions, but things like this are gradients coupled to imperfect terms.

[mannykannot]

So one must choose between seeing every issue as a stark dichotomy, or never doing so?

[brookst]

I am choosing to believe you were smiling and enjoying the humor in that question.

[stronglikedan]

Some people think sustaining debates by splitting hairs indefinitely is productive, some don’t. Debating the point isn’t useful because there’s no objective truth to get to.

[robertlagrant]

You're doing the same thing, but instead of invention/innovation you're saying how productive something is. That is also a sliding scale.

[TeMPOraL]

Yeah, but then some of us might mount a spirited argument along the third dimension - (honest / lying). In my experience, most of the "semantic arguments" you mention happen in context of someone wanting to sell you something (whether a product or a belief) - so while it's never binary, the borders get fuzzier the further you go towards "lying" on that third axis.

[molyss]

Some could argue that the transistor wasn’t an invention but a discovery: the physical behavior of the semiconductors has existed for millennia, and we discovered that behavior, but we had already invented vacuum tubes before which did the same thing, just a lot less efficiently. Notice that I said “invented” vacuum tubes because the behavior comes from careful engineering and manufacture which didn’t exist in the known universe before that.

But here too, arguing on invention vs discover is pointless because there’s no common truth…

[mannykannot]

From Wikipedia: "After the war, Shockley decided to attempt the building of a triode-like semiconductor device." If attempting (and succeeding) in using one's knowledge to produce a specific thing that does not currently exist is not invention, what is?

More generally, if there's no common truth then that itself cannot be a common truth...

[Someone]

> Notice that I said “invented” vacuum tubes because the behavior comes from careful engineering and manufacture which didn’t exist in the known universe before that.

That would mean an invention can become a discovery, potentially millennia later, if we discover (no pun intended) that the thing already existed in some form. I think few people would agree with that.

Also, the same ”discover or invent?” question is frequently asked about mathematics, where “exist in the known universe” is very much open for interpretation. Euclidean geometry ‘existed’ in the known universe for centuries, for example, until Einstein found out that it didn’t.

[InDubioProRubio]

Its all just TRIZ. https://www.triz40.com/TRIZ_GB.php

[TeMPOraL]

Then there's a different tail chase that's on the opposite side of "innovation" - whether doing the obvious thing others are doing, but achieving wider reach because of more funding, counts as innovation, or just popularization?

(To me personally, it's popularization, but in startup economy, it's pretty much the definition of "innovation".)

[xanderlewis]

I disagree that in general it’s not useful to debate subjective matters.

What is being debated is not whether the given label applies, but whether the label should apply (which really means what the label means), which are subtly different things. The outcome of such a debate is an improved definition or at least an improved understanding of the sense in which others use the label.

I take it you don’t think it pointless to have an argument about whether or not something is ‘racist’, for example.

[nkrisc]

Ok, what changes based on which label should apply?

> I take it you don’t think it pointless to have an argument about whether or not something is ‘racist’, for example.

In the abstract, it probably is, unless the point of the argument is to determine whether to make meaningful change. "Are oranges racist?" - pointless. "Is this policy racist, in that it disproportionately affects X minority group?" - meaningful.

Say we all agree this is an example of innovation and not invention - now what? What was the outcome that warranted the argument at all?

[SecretDreams]

Sometimes it's about the journey. Arguing/debating, even when there's no objective truth to the conclusion, can still teach you a lot about yourself and your opponent. How you think, where you have gaps.

Think of any political debate during an election. There's no truth. It's more for the audience.

Let the audience know who you are!