"
...new people take the old inventions so much for granted that it’s not just that they don’t understand how to replicate them, they lose the idea that such things ever existed." -
Silicon Graybeard
My impressions of the phenomena that S-G points out is that things that were once common knowledge are forgotten as "the smart people" follow the cutting-edge.
In the 1940s and 1950s, manufacturing was the cutting edge that kept us ahead of the NAZI and Japanese, then the Soviet threat. It attracted many of the best-and-brightest.
At one point, all of the important questions were considered solved and the market (wages) called inquisitive people elsewhere.
Rules that had been left in place were covered with sediment. Ad hoc rule-of-thumb were formulated and used instead of the cumulative wisdom. Unintended consequences resulted from the simplified or warped rule-set.
The full moon causes frost
One of the culprits in the dumbing-down is a lack of understanding about "spurious associations".
For example, in many places it is believed that the full moon causes frost. There are accounts where observers claim that they measured the temperature plummet when the full moon became visible in the night sky.
The crux of the misinformation is the casually chosen "null hypothesis". It is widely know that the night-time temperature does not fall nearly as much when the sky is cloudy as when it is clear. So was it the fact that the phase of the moon was "full" or the fact that the sky became clear, that is free-of-clouds?
The full moon grabs our attention. It is far less obvious when something is NOT there.
Wouldn't it be more "pure" to compare the temperature drop on a clear night when the moon was full and the moon was "new"?
But what immediately catches the eye is what most observers will assume is "causality". The drop in temperature was not due to the full moon suddenly became visible. It was because the clouds moved away and stopped reflecting radiant heat loss from escaping to deep-space.
So it is when people do not study history
History is full rule-sets that seem unduly complicated. Why DO people have to be married before having children? Why should people not have sex outside of marriage? Why should people tell the truth or not gossip? Why shouldn't I steal from somebody who has more than they need?
It seems so easy to prune out the complications and run with a rule-set that seems consistent with our own, personal observations.
The implicit assumption is that our own observations are objective and unbiased. But how often do we have preconceptions about others' motives, preconceptions that might bias our assumed direction of causality?
Risk cannot be destroyed. It can only be budgeted. It can be hidden in dark places where there are few resources to address it when it goes south. Or it can be acknowledged and addressed explicitly.
I know which I prefer.