Reply
Fri 14 May, 2004 10:50 am
What is the value and justification of pure scientific knowledge?
As most of you know from my posts, I'm a strong supporter of the sciences and of exploration. But if we were to debate the value of science exploration and knowledge in comparison to its cost, how would we measure it? How would we justify it, and should we need to justify it?
Many people would say for example, that we should be feeding the starving millions rather than spending time and money taking pictures of black holes and looking for microbes on Mars. Often as a defense to this challenge we note the benefits of medical science due to discovery, and that at least is a practical benefit, but what about those bits of knowledge which are unlikely to have a direct payoff anytime soon, if at all (like understanding the topology of the Universe, or knowing what color the dinosaurs were). What are those bits of knowledge worth?
One argument might be that exploration and knowledge are food for the soul, and a reflection of the essence of what it is to be human. But how many of us would choose knowledge, over food and shelter if it were our own survival in the balance?
The pragmatic answer of providing humanitarian benefit through discover is an easy one, and even the most hardcore humanitarian will usually grant you some capital expenditure in those cases (though grudgingly), but how do we answer the challenge to the pure endeavors where knowledge is sought for the sake of knowledge itself. I'm assuming that like most things, there is a point at which a balance can be attained, but without a good measure of benefits and costs, how do we define that balance?
Thanks,
Re: What is the value of pure scientific knowldge?
rosborne979 wrote:One argument might be that exploration and knowledge are food for the soul, and a reflection of the essence of what it is to be human. But how many of us would choose knowledge, over food and shelter if it were our own survival in the balance?
How many of us would have the chance to choose knowledge over food if it weren't for our current science? As much as people dislike agribusiness in general I think you'd be hard pressed to grow and distribute enough food to feed even half of the current population of the world without the scientific advances we've seen in the last 100 years.
Food itself may be the 1st choice but the luxury of having it allows one the time and energy to consider the feasibility of feeding their neighboor that doesn't.
Re: What is the value of pure scientific knowldge?
fishin' wrote:Food itself may be the 1st choice but the luxury of having it allows one the time and energy to consider the feasibility of feeding their neighboor that doesn't.
Good point but tough to quantify. Thanks.
Scientific knowledge has no value, and problems should be solved as they arise. We shouldn't spend a penny of government money on this tomfoolery. And Astronomy - why, I can't think of a more monumental waste of resources. NASA should be restricted to projects with immediate payoff here in Earth. Science and Math, except practical math, like making change and so forth, should be eliminated from the school curriculums. I'd rather have a son who grew up to be a good barber, auto mechanic, or gardener, then some damn fool dreamer like Einstein.
well , having heard Brandons rather erudite positions on subjects scientific , I am certain that his post was done with tongue firmly in cheek.Hes just being a closet provacateur.
Its difficult to even develop a practical application of any reasonably advanced pursuit while we are in the exploration stage. Thats the wonder of exploration. There is a significant effort in privately funded research looking at the formation of "abiogenic oil" This will probably lead nowhere but , Im still open minded. As far as dinosaur bones, there is an interesting story. A husband and wife tetam of paleontologists were doing work on conodonts , a little fossil found in unique environments. The color of these fossils , in situ, has been found to match emplacement and migration conditions that favor petroleum traps. So, unknown to them when they started, they discovered that the (Munsell) color of the fossil correlated nicely with the presence and proximity of oil. This technique(among others) has enabled oil exploration to actually become an applied science rather than a guessing game . It used to be that drilling a pilot hole had a 1:10 chance of finding oil. Today we are almost dead on in exploration. The only thing we have yet to figure out is , what is the field size without significant drilling expenses.
All science is a guessing game during the search. We can smugly sit back and say"of course" it was bound to happen anyway. Just look at the discovery and development of the structure of DNA starting with Meischers work in Germany back in the 1890s when he extracted "nuclein" from pus soaked bandages. All the way thhrough SChrodingers postulates and the crystal work of Bragg, Franklin , Ayers, and Watson and Crick, everybody was working on a small piece of the puzzle , Look at what weve wrought since the work done in the 1940s and 50s. we are now on the edge of some earth changing discoveries into life and medicine.These were areas that, until a relatively few years ago,were totally undreamed of
Never ask the justification question about a scientific discovery until significant time has passed from making the discovery. Anyway, like the question posed about the exisence of God and the dispute between science and orthodox religion,
:
"why would a God gift us with a mind capable of unravelling the secrets of the universe and then order us not to use it?"
Science is sorta that way. Humans are (mostly) impatient about our species ignorance. We do it because we must.
I was going to charge in here on a high horse and defend pure research but farmerman made a much better case. My only comment would be is that a lot of pure research involves devising new ways at looking at the world, reconfiguring the box if you will. And this is the necessary precursor to any advance in practical science.
Brandon9000 wrote: I'd rather have a son who grew up to be a good barber, auto mechanic, or gardener, then some damn fool dreamer like Einstein.
Me too! But mostly just 'cause Einstein is dead. Dead kids aren't much fun.
The Libertarian = liberty = freedom answer is we should be free to pursue our dreams as long as they cause only minor harm or inconvenience to others. We should encourage research of all but the evil kinds, but not lay guilt trips on those who do not wish to contribute to the worthy causes nor the frivolous causes. Generally the government should not steal from the rich to give to the poor nor to researchers except in the most compelling areas of human need and benefit to society. Private parties and groups are free to support who they wish except for evil and harmful research. My guess is this Libertarian view might be carried to excess, in which case moderation is the sensible alternative. I see little danger of excess of the Libertarian view, but considerable danger in government in our face. Neil
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace