So many assumptions!
First, I didn't call the humanities bullshit, and I didn't compare them in a judgmental kind of way to cancer research, those were merely examples of a real life palpable
applications of knowledge. And it's pretty presumptuous to say that it's the humanities that aren't heard. The only ones who are heard are those that have or promise money. There are enough scientists and engineers that are also not heard.
And the thing about all those books is that it's all opinion. Someone (who has already been shaped by history, environment and the like) writes a book with their own opinion, and an opinion can never be empirical because if it was, it wouldn't be an opinion, but a fact. A piece of steel with a mass of 1kg will always have a mass of 1kg and it won't change its mass if someone writes a whole library of books about how it doesn't have a mass of 1kg (inb4 dissolution processes). Granted, this is a rather polemic example, but the humanities' understanding of the world is always based on humans and not on laws of nature. And laws of nature just can't be argued against. Anything a human being does can, but light will always have the same speed, no matter the frame of reference or whatever kind of unit it used. And that is an absolute a physicist can use for orientation. A historian can't, because as long as we don't invent time machines or at least "looking-back-machines", we can't get the full picture of what has happened before us and thus we are dependent on the accounts of the people who were there - who also always described everything relative to their own experiences - and the odd piece of whatever we find in the soil and if we don't know what it is we claim it has a ritualistic purpose, so it' all relative and it's all building upon each other. Could that also fit into the black box you are talking about? But in that case you'd have to try and elicit the whole chain of information ever since the first man.
>Sorting Things Out has a moral agenda,
Yes, and that is exactly what I was afraid of and frankly, what I expected. Classification as a means of keeping/seizing power and so on. As mentioned above, it's all opinions and by having a moral agenda, the authors apparently and ironically themselves use some kind of classification for making things invisible and not only are they having an opinion on something, but also an opinion they want to use to steer people into a certain direction because they are, themselves coming from a certain direction. Again, when describing how the human skeleton built there just are no opinions or moral agendas. Skull, clavicle, femur, those are also constants. Meanwhile the authors of that book are moving in a circular fashion, as described.
Next, the big tech companies are really bad examples, in fact, private companies in general are bad examples for what you are trying to say. Of course, in a perfect world, a bunch of smart people (which in a perfect world would be everyone) would gather, carefully check all the facts and povs and then make an informed decision. But this is just not a perfect world and I hope we can at least agree that for most of the world, money is what is deciding what is done and what not. And the internet is completely commercialized. Do you really think Google wouldn't hear those voices if they made them more money? It's just not profitable. There are enough great scientific concepts, but they're also not profitable and thus nobody cares or they even get suppressed actively, or even worse, the wrong ideas are heard, e.g. gender bullshit in the german language. We're in the same boat here man.
And do you think everything is run by engineers or what? That there is a big engineer boss who tells the engineer mooks to engineer something? Engineers are as much workers as others, just with a different skillset. They solve the problems they are told to. You act like there's some international engineer conspiracy to suppress the great teachings of the historian. In fact I don't think any engineer or scientist would mind hearing what a historian has to say, unless it's the same old "you are oppressing people with your research/why don't you change your whole methodology to make it more appealing to me/why are you using professional language, nobody understand what you are saying".
Speaking of history of science, what scope are you suggesting here? What I mean is that for example when writing any kind of paper you have to do already historical research, in that you have to go and look what people have already done and what is the current state and you can't just cite big books (although some people do), because primary sources are preferred, which for example means that if you are writing something about the Gram staining, you cite the original paper from 1890 or whenever it was. And of course you also need to critically evaluate the results of those before you when comparing them with your new findings and here is where that whole "nothing is obvoius" thing is really starting to get on my nerves - because if my methodology is sound, my equipment works as intended and thus the results are with almost 100% certainty also sound and it just so happens to disprove earlier findings, the last thing I need is someone coming in with their opinion or "general consensus" and that is something that has been going on for too long. From Galileo to crazy newer physicists, there have always been some assholes trying to argue with facts and that is why I am such a staunch opponent to yielding even just a little bit to anyone trying to argue. In fact, I wish the sciences would go even further into the other direction. Facts above all, no paradigms, no opinions, no consensus on things that have clear results. Just the facts, and if those facts invalidate the old "general consensus", so be it. End of tirade, I am tired too.
Concerning the thought experiments, those were chosen in contrast to actual experiments, because yeah, by uttering a word it's been brought to this world, thus basically every story, even if fictional, is actually part of this world if it's been told to someone, but you're using absurd hyperbole in your argumentation. Thought experiments are thought experiments because in some way or the other they can't be carried out irl (be it because a humane society wouldn't just chain people to a stone in a cave) and/or because they are used for illustrating something, like Schrödinger's Cat. But merely illustrating something doesn't yield any actual result, does it? There is no new knowledge generated from it, just passed on. And THAT is what I meant.
>(also same problems as other living beings but I think that is self explaning anyway).
>To me nothing is really obvious
You cheeky cunt :^)
And to reply to your last remark: I most certainly do not think we know everything, I am just picky with the knowledge I consider worth pursuing (as are you), but that comes down to personal preference, obviously. Also, I hate my field.
Also also, this discussion with you led to a new insight: I am too unprecise in my writing when discussing things on the internet. I value brevity, but I lack the skill to actually apply it accordingly.
Last, fuck my laptop keyboard, I think the S is dying