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.
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.
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
We humans desperately want binary definitions, but things like this are gradients coupled to imperfect terms.
But here too, arguing on invention vs discover is pointless because there’s no common truth…
More generally, if there's no common truth then that itself cannot be a common truth...
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.
(To me personally, it's popularization, but in startup economy, it's pretty much the definition of "innovation".)
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.
> 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?
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!