Originally posted by humy1. You're just asserting that you're not using hindsight to classify these things as "semi-pure" science. I've yet to see proof that when people just started working on say, how electricity works, this was already seen as something that was going to have applications later on.
That's because most of it wasn't truly pure science at the time but what I would call “semi-pure science” because, even at the time, there was good reason to believe it would probably eventually lead to useful applications and that is even without the benefit of hindsight of what we know now. What are the probable benefits of such research ...[text shortened]... oviding[/i] that same money is then spent on better things such as feeding the starving etc.
2. Your second argument seems weak to me. We can see the enormous prosperity scientific research has brought to our society. We know that all of this is based on pure, basic, scientific research. Now that funding this research is increasing in cost, so that our governments now invest a measly 2% of their GDP (and much of this 2% is taken up by what you'd call applied science) in science you say we have to stop ? There is nothing in this world that has a greater return on investment than investing in science. Your misguided idea of cutting research to save some pennies for the poor would lead to stagnation of the human race.
Originally posted by BartsHe's not arguing diverting money from Science to feed the poor, he is arguing diverting money from 'pure' science to 'applied' science that has specific applications for helping to feed the poor or reduce poverty.
1. You're just asserting that you're not using hindsight to classify these things as "semi-pure" science. I've yet to see proof that when people just started working on say, how electricity works, this was already seen as something that was going to have applications later on.
2. Your second argument seems weak to me. We can see the enormous prosperity scie ...[text shortened]... ing research to save some pennies for the poor would lead to stagnation of the human race.
I also disagree with him!
The discoverers of electricity had no idea at all whether it would be of any use. They certainly could not give you any kind of list of possible applications for it. When Cern was built, there was no inkling that the Web would come out of it.
Similarly, we have no idea what else will come from better understanding of mass that the studies on the Higgs will give. Once we understood what electricity was, we were able to manipulate and control it. If we can understand what mass is...
--- Penguin
2 edits
Originally posted by Barts
1. You're just asserting that you're not using hindsight to classify these things as "semi-pure" science. I've yet to see proof that when people just started working on say, how electricity works, this was already seen as something that was going to have applications later on.
2. Your second argument seems weak to me. We can see the enormous prosperity scie ing research to save some pennies for the poor would lead to stagnation of the human race.
I've yet to see proof that when people just started working on say, how electricity works,
but I am not saying that was “semi-pure science” without the benefit of hindsight.
I would say that would have been “truly pure science” without the benefit of hindsight.
But if you read the bottom part of my previous post, you see I still would not have been against such research back then without the benefit of hindsight -just against spending millions of government dollars on it at a time when, without the benefit of hindsight, that money could seemingly be spent on other better things or more argent things to the greater benefit of humanity.
Now that funding this research is increasing in cost, so that our governments now invest a measly 2% of their GDP (and much of this 2% is taken up by what you'd call applied science) in science you say we have to stop ?
NO. In fact, I am arguing that it should be INCREASED and I have already said this in several of my previous posts on this thread. Governments and politicians generally grossly underestimate the value of scientific research.
3 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYes, and the leyden jar ( = Leiden jar ) did not swallow up millions of government dollars in funding which could have been better spent on other things. So, even without the benefit of hindsight, I would not have been against its research. In fact, I would have supported it back then even if I had thought that it would not lead to any practical benefit for sure!
There was definitely no idea that electricity was going to be useful for something. The Leiden jar was a neat toy, nothing more.
2 edits
As I have already said this in several of my previous posts on this thread; science funding for science from governments generally should be INCREASED and NOT cut as many of you keep repeatedly saying I am saying which I am not.
I never said nor implied in any way that there should be a cut in the total funding for science by governments nor would I think such a general cut would be justified.
Originally posted by humyWell, at the time science was practised mostly by aristocrats, while most of the population was either starving or otherwise dying from war, TBC, cholera or some other horrible disease. And now that poverty is mostly eradicated in the wealthier parts of the world you want them to stop spending a minute amount on "pure science", even though such endeavours might very well end poverty in the rest of the world as well?
Yes, and the leyden jar ( = Leiden jar ) did not swallow up millions of government dollars in funding which could have been better spent on other things. So, even without the benefit of hindsight, I would not have been against its research. In fact, I would have supported it back then even if I had thought that it would not lead to any practical benefit for sure!
Originally posted by humyApologies for making what is apparently an unclear post (as both you and Penguin interpreted in a way which I did not intend). I am fully aware that you are not against science funding in general but only in what you call "pure science". The second part of my post was an argument that pure science is needed as a basis for all the scientific advances and that we're spending a very small amount compared to the potentially huge breakthrough we can make there.
[quote] Now that funding this research is increasing in cost, so that our governments now invest a measly 2% of their GDP (and much of this 2% is taken up by what you'd call applied science) in science you say we have to stop ?
NO. In fact, I am arguing that it should be INCREASED and I have already said this in several of my previous posts ...[text shortened]... . Governments and politicians generally grossly underestimate the value of scientific research.
1 edit
Originally posted by BartsI am totally with you on that. I do not think pure science should be stopped in order to divert more funds to applied science.
Apologies for making what is apparently an unclear post (as both you and Penguin interpreted in a way which I did not intend). I am fully aware that you are not against science funding in general but only in what you call "pure science". The second part of my post was an argument that pure science is needed as a basis for all the scientific advances and that w spending a very small amount compared to the potentially huge breakthrough we can make there.
[edit] and I can't see any other reason for stopping such research either.[/edit]
--- Penguin