By the 19th Century, difficult to imagine much engineering progress that doesn't depend partially on "pure science"
-
-
But I think it's fair to say that up to that point,direction of benefit was as much "business->science" as visa versa
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
It sounds like she's making sillier version of argument,but she often has problem of burying good arguments in bad 1s
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @toad_spotted
All true. It took ages for medical science->practical benefit
@AngloRemnant1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @whyvert @toad_spotted
But *some* cases of early science->practical value eg ballistics (math of shooting cannon) + steam engine
@AngloRemnant1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @whyvert @AngloRemnant
steam engine seems like the perfect example of how McCloskey is overstating a plausible argument...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
obv there were huge advances in practical/commercial technology that allowed for steam engine experimentation,even as
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
early inventors also depended on knowledge that can only be described as pure science
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @toad_spotted @whyvert
To get a bit unhelpfully abstract, the exponential growth curve kicked off by the IR was a historical discontinuity..
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
..it seems like some kind of singularity has to be a part of the causal explanations of IR, and by that logic..
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
..the invention of science seems a better fit than slowly warming attitudes toward merchants.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.