Stop spending money on pure science

There is obviously a grey area between “pure science” and “applied science”.
A good example of that would be research into how high temperature superconductors work which could be seen as indirectly applied science because it is generally done with the long-term gaol to see if and how room temperature superconductivity might be achieved which, of course, would be an application of science.
Perhaps such grey-area science should be called “semi-pure science”? Or “potentially applied science”? Or “grey-area science” ? Or “grey science” ? “middle science”? Or what? Any opinions of what it should be called?

Why not give some examples of 'pure science'. Does it really exist?

Originally posted by humy

Studying the properties of electricity was once considered useless except as a novelty,

you cannot extrapolate from that and conclude that it is likely that the research into, for example, the Higgs, will lead to very useful applications -if that is what you are arguing here? Would you argue that, for example, BECAUSE the studying the propert ...[text shortened]... already been more or less ruled out as a way of achieving faster than light communication.

I'm going to keep it short and simple. Funding fundamental science will never have a guarantee. You won't know what, if anything, will come out of it. However, we know that historically, some of the greatest discoveries have come from research that had no obvious practical application. To stop this kind of research is short-sighted. I can't tell you what it would cost humanity, but if the rest of human history is some kind of indication the cost would be astronomical.

Disagree. It's not a matter of choosing. Mankind already produces vastly more resources than required to alleviate all hunger and poverty. It's not that the resources that could be used to end world hunger are now used for science, it's just that places where hunger and poverty exist have poor governance. If anything, investing in science will help increase productivity and improve governance, so this would be a reason to invest more in science, not less.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why not give some examples of 'pure science'. Does it really exist?

The study of the Higgs.

The study of black holes.

The study of Saturn's rings.

Those are three areas of research with no obvious prospect or way of giving practical application for the benefit of humanity so I would call that truly pure science.

Originally posted by Barts
I'm going to keep it short and simple. Funding fundamental science will never have a guarantee. You won't know what, if anything, will come out of it. However, we know that historically, some of the greatest discoveries have come from research that had no obvious practical application. To stop this kind of research is short-sighted. I can't tell you what it w ...[text shortened]... , but if the rest of human history is some kind of indication the cost would be astronomical.

Funding fundamental science will never have a guarantee.

yes, but some sciences have a greater probability of benefiting humanity than others if funded and, generally, it is more the applied sciences such as cancer research etc that we should judge to have more chance of giving benefit to humanity than the truly pure sciences such as research into black holes etc.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Disagree. It's not a matter of choosing. Mankind already produces vastly more resources than required to alleviate all hunger and poverty. It's not that the resources that could be used to end world hunger are now used for science, it's just that places where hunger and poverty exist have poor governance. If anything, investing in science will help incr ...[text shortened]... tivity and improve governance, so this would be a reason to invest more in science, not less.

who or which post are you responding to?

anyway, I agree with what you just said there.

Originally posted by humy

You are making the error of thinking that there is a shortage of money available to spend on world poverty and all its consequences and that the shortage is in the science budget

No, I am not making that error. I do NOT think “ there is a shortage of money available to spend on world poverty and all its consequences and that the shortage is ...[text shortened]... n, you see I didn't say that. I consider atomic research for atomic power to be worth doing.

It seems to me the fundamental reason for poverty is the extreme population of the planet. Where we are using up RIGHT NOW 50% of the planet's resources, if we somehow double the population we would be using up something like 100% of the planet so clearly there is a limit as to how many people should be on the planet at any one time and it seems to me there are about 10 times too many people, resources of the world running out an having people living by the millions in refugee camps.

The money you talk about should be put into population control and the poverty issue will go away for the most part.

Each year, people think they have to have 10X more goodies than the past year, and that means more energy used to build stuff, ship stuff, sell it, get that latest contraption to the home, which then consumes more money keeping it lit.

The main thing I wonder about is why hasn't the world wide system collapsed under it's own weight already? Climate possibly tipping out of control will only lead to even MORE poor starving people till the population stabilizes at a number that the planet can sustain. I think that number is under 1 billion myself.

The problem with spending on applied science is most companies want to make more gadgets, more phones, cameras and such using the latest technology but nothing much for sustained education, health and such.

Originally posted by sonhouse
It seems to me the fundamental reason for poverty is the extreme population of the planet. Where we are using up RIGHT NOW 50% of the planet's resources, if we somehow double the population we would be using up something like 100% of the planet so clearly there is a limit as to how many people should be on the planet at any one time and it seems to me there d such using the latest technology but nothing much for sustained education, health and such.

The money you talk about should be put into population control and the poverty issue will go away for the most part.

oh I don't think that is true. Overpopulation is just one of several causes of poverty and not the dominant one. I would guess that bad/corrupt politics involving governments giving all the wrong priorities ( as well as indulging in warfare as well as oppression ) is a far greater cause if not the main one. Consider the fact that there is poverty in many places in the world that have very low population densities even where there are plenty of natural resorces -difficult to imagine how population control would help much there with poverty.

The problem with spending on applied science is most companies want to make more gadgets, more phones, cameras and such using the latest technology but nothing much for sustained education, health and such.

wouldn't that depend on which applied science? I mean, medical advances certainly wouldn't do this and advances in solar power probably wouldn't do this at least not directly and only indirectly if it make electricity much cheaper.

Also, at least were I came from, it isn’t companies that mainly fund “sustained education, health and such” but government.
Thus it wouldn't be as if companies spending more on “more gadgets, more phones, cameras and such” would mean less money will be spent on “sustained education, health and such” because the two are generally funded from two different independent sources at least most of the time.

Originally posted by humy
The study of the Higgs.

Definitely not! Nuclear research is essential applied science and will benefit us in many areas ranging from electronics to superconductors.

The study of black holes.
Again, this will tell us a lot about space in general and has many potential applications. I say it is applied science.

The study of Saturn's rings.
OK, you nearly got me there, but I still think that the study of space and the solar system holds a 'human interest' value that makes it applied science.

Those are three areas of research with no obvious prospect or way of giving practical application for the benefit of humanity so I would call that truly pure science.
Who says 'benefit to humanity' is the criteria for applied science? A lot of applied science is weapons development which is quite decisively not a benefit to humanity. A very large part of applied science is the development of entertainment products - which the study of Saturns rings or the Mars rovers could be categorised as.

Originally posted by humy
Overpopulation is just one of several causes of poverty and not the dominant one.

It is not overpopulation that is the problem it is people having too many children which maintains the poverty cycle. If people had one child per family they would educate them better and it would cost them less. However, before people have less children they need better education themselves, health care and a bit more wealth. Its a catch 22 situation. Raise living standards and population growth falls by itself.

Originally posted by humy

The money you talk about should be put into population control and the poverty issue will go away for the most part.

oh I don't think that is true. Overpopulation is just one of several causes of poverty and not the dominant one. I would guess that bad/corrupt politics involving governments giving all the wrong priorities ( as well as indulgi ...[text shortened]... two are generally funded from two different independent sources at least most of the time.

If there was say 1/10th the human population on Earth, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would go down 90% as a matter of course, the climate would stabilize and recover in a hundred years or so and we could grow crops most anywhere again. Look what is happening in Africa and now the US midwest, extreme drought and that will not stop. If people were not using up half the resources of the planet there would be more for everyone. Oppression would perhaps not stop unless people banded together to force the tyrants out like they are doing in Arab spring.

The world would not become an instant utopia of course but it would go a long way to righting the wrongs mankind is doing to the planet.

How long can we keep adding to the swirling thousand mile wide river of garbage in the Pacific? How many more dumps do we have to abandon? How do we get rid of thousands of tons of spent nuclear waste? Tell me those problems wouldn't be better if there were 1/10th the people on Earth.

Originally posted by sonhouse
If there was say 1/10th the human population on Earth, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would go down 90% as a matter of course, the climate would stabilize and recover in a hundred years or so and we could grow crops most anywhere again. Look what is happening in Africa and now the US midwest, extreme drought and that will not stop. If people were not u ...[text shortened]... lear waste? Tell me those problems wouldn't be better if there were 1/10th the people on Earth.

All that is true. But reducing the population to ~1/10th alone would not make poverty go away because politics and not population (size) that is usually the main cause of poverty.

The human population was once 1/10th of what it was now and yet there was much poverty back then and, although part of that would have been down to lack of technology, you could argue that much more of that would have been down to politics just as it is now.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Definitely not! Nuclear research is essential applied science and will benefit us in many areas ranging from electronics to superconductors.

[b]The study of black holes.
Again, this will tell us a lot about space in general and has many potential applications. I say it is applied science.

The study of Saturn's rings.
OK, you nearly got ent products - which the study of Saturns rings or the Mars rovers could be categorised as.[/b]

Definitely not! Nuclear research is essential applied science and will benefit us in many areas ranging from electronics to superconductors.

the study of the Higgs is not applied nuclear research ( it would have to be about producing useful energy for that or blowing up things or something like that ) nor is there any reason to believe that the study of the Higgs is likely to benefit electronics or superconductors.
By any stretch of the imagination, the study of the Higgs is pure science and not applied science.

The study of black holes.
Again, this will tell us a lot about space in general and has many potential applications.

how do you know that it would have “ many potential applications”? What reason have you got to believe this or even that it could be probable?
Intuitively, what do you think the chances of a non-trivial practical application being realized from the study of black holes occurring within, say, the next 50 years?
I personally would judge there to be very little chance.

The study of Saturn's rings.
OK, you nearly got me there, but I still think that the study of space and the solar system holds a 'human interest' value that makes it applied science.

a scientific study that only has only a mere 'human interest' value is a pure science by definition of pure science and is not an applied science by definition of applied science. What do you think distinguishes a pure science from an applied science?
Can you give an example of what you think is a pure science and not an applied science and which has no 'human interest' value?

Who says 'benefit to humanity' is the criteria for applied science?

if that is the reason for doing it, that makes it an applied science.

A lot of applied science is weapons development which is quite decisively not a benefit to humanity.

yes, which simply means what defines applied science is not its actual benefit nor the motive to give benefit so you can have an applied science with no benefit although if it is done for the benefit to humanity ( and I mean practical benefit here and not trivial entertainment benefit ) , that still makes it an applied science.

A very large part of applied science is the development of entertainment products

-THIS is the type of science I think we should stop funding ( put on hold ) until we have solved all our non-trivial problems on Earth such as poverty etc.
after we have solved all our non-trivial problems, THEN I have no objection to funding such science.

Originally posted by humy
the study of the Higgs is not applied nuclear research ( it would have to be about producing useful energy for that or blowing up things or something like that ) nor is there any reason to believe that the study of the Higgs is likely to benefit electronics or superconductors.
By any stretch of the imagination, the study of the Higgs is pure science and not applied science.

I am convinced that further developments in everything from electronics, superconductors and nuclear power will benefit from a better understanding of the fundamental particles. Studying the Higgs is a part of that.

In mathematics, 'pure maths' would be when you try to take things into the abstract and discover patterns. Applied maths is when you already know that patterns and you apply that to real world tasks.
So in science, 'pure science' could be when we discover new stuff and 'applied science' would be when we use what we already know for real world applications. But there are times when we need to discover something new to do something in the real world. Is the effort to discover that new something 'pure science' or 'applied science' or both?

Your definitions seem to suggest that as long as there is a definite goal in which a discovery will be utilized then it is 'applied science'.

-THIS is the type of science I think we should stop funding ( put on hold ) until we have solved all our non-trivial problems on Earth such as poverty etc.
after we have solved all our non-trivial problems, THEN I have no objection to funding such science.
And I disagree. I don't think stopping scientific research on anything will in any way change the real problems that cause poverty. If anything it might cause a backlash of bad sentiment towards the overall goal. Its rather like the way carbon trading is so disliked by some people that they have mounted a campaign against any science that suggests the existence of climate change.