Schneier on Security

Clive Robinson • August 2, 2025 9:48 AM

@ Celos,

With regards,

“Because what it does is take a step back and ask the question “Are we really making the progress that gets claimed?” and then provides evidence that this is not actually the case”

Perhaps the issue is something that is it’s self a question. That is,

“What is progress?”

Much of it is not proving something is true or false, but gathering knowledge both old and new and using it to support humanity.

As an engineer I know we productively use a lot of things we do not actually fundamentally understand such as “inertia”.

We measure them and extract reliable characteristics, which we them call “intrinsic properties” or “natural tendencies” and then call the equations we derive to match the graphs of our measurements “principles”.

Thus we have both progress in that we can apply the principle usefully but also ignorance because we know nothing beyond the observations of the measurements.

Thus both practical principles and theoretical ignorance marching hand in hand to where? we have no idea, but it is progress.

But which if either is actually progress?

But there is an issue we don’t talk about untill it’s threatened as it is currently in the US.

Untill the mid Victorian era, progress was mostly artisanal and frankly dangerous. With knowledge of how to solve the dangers hard won by destruction and death kept secret as “trade / guild secrets”. To not just gain wealth but power over others with.

It was around this time that independently wealthy people became “gentlemen experimenters and philanthropists” and added to the domain of Natural Philosophers that were breaking away from religious stricture. The term Scientist[1] was coined in 1833 and along with a movement for philanthropy that paid those who were technically able but not wealthy humanity started to move forward very rapidly.

That forward progress in “information / knowledge” fairly free of constraint at that time gave rise to considerable economic growth thus both money and power. Both of which in effect got reinvested in science and thus created not just rapid development in knowledge but society as well. A little less than two centuries has seen a lot of progress in society through industry whilst what some would regard as progress has been a lot slower in fundamental knowledge.

Two things have become clear,

1, Knowledge / information is worth more than profit and personal / organisational power.
2, Knowledge / information only comes about due to profit being reinvested.

It’s a cycle that only a fool would think can be broken…

Because without progress in science the economy will collapse and thus profit and power will be likewise effected.

Part of the current hype behind AI is to replace humans as those who are scientists so the accumulation of knowledge can be automated. But it just does not work that way, because information alone is not knowledge.

Unfortunately not understanding that just demonstrates how foolish those who seek just profit and power actually are.

As more are realising the purpose of humans has become,

“Curiosity about and above all things”.

From which the gaining of information and turning it into knowledge to perpetuate the process is the reason for “the progress” that is the continued human existence.

Cutting back on the gaining of knowledge or science is the real existential threat to humanity and much else besides. Because humans have taken this world beyond a tipping point.

[1] The term “scientist” some claim was actually coined as a sexist insult or term of prejudice. However the word science was around at least a half century before and was based on the latin word for knowledge.

So people claiming to be working in “Knowledge Science” or “Information Science” are exercising a term in a redundant way.