Science for Science

The previous entry prompted discussions and my friend offered another argument for basic research: the existence of knowledge is very valuable, other than science for its own sake -- a subtle but significant difference.  If you can afford it, it's more efficient to coordinate a basic research effort to systematically build a pool of knowledge (ideally, without economic or political pressure).  The potential for practical applications, while it does exist, is farfield.  Most entities, namely corporations, are not as huge as the government; they cannot engage in this because of more immediate concerns, like fiscal solvency.  The research in which they tend to engage is not the most socially valuable; it's the most profitable, but this profitability is often due to idiosyncrasies of intellectual property laws.  So the government picks up the stuff that falls through.  Also, this tends to be the kind of knowledge most useful if freely available -- can you imagine a patent on electricity?

He also disagrees with my assessment that science helps us understand the universe; that physics answers "how?" rather than "why?"-- though he conceded this is a fine line between physics and metaphysics.  He argues, "At present, society is sufficiently postmodern that statements about the human condition no longer need be informed by underlying physical theories." (The quotes are legitimate, I had to ask for a translation: Basically, society is presently so self-aware that nothing science discovers would really alter that perception.  Gone are the days of heliocentric vs. geocentric and all the excommunications the discussion brought). He's not a total cynic; he hopes for a revolution in intellectual history, but he's just uncertain as to when and what.  (Otherwise he would much rather be a musician).

Just a little something to think about ...

Comments

[mr.k]

"...society is sufficiently postmodern that statements about the human condition no longer need be informed by underlying physical theories"

I have to disagree with your friend. It seems true, but isn't it a little short sighted? Newtonian mechanics were bullet proof from the early 1700s (assuming that's when they entered general society) until the early 1900s, when we entered the quantum age. Newton nor Galileo could have possibly imagined objects moving at the speed of light, or electrons, or atoms, for that matter. And the technology that emerged certainly reshaped our world. So here we are so jaded, thinking we've seen it all, but we haven't, because there are still huge questions about the nature of gravity and the existence of a unified theory.

I wonder sometimes if research is off-track...what will be the "ether" of our times...could it be, dark matter?

I say that we are vulnerable to a paradign shift. As a matter of fact, we resist new discovery, and the opposition today, as it was in the time of Galileo, is religion. I don't mean to bash religion-- I practice religion myself. But there are still those with strong voices that oppose evolution, oppose theories about the origin of Earth or the rest of the universe. There are those that refuse to believe that humans affect global warming. These discoveries are not new science.

As far as the science we haven't done: we cannot sense, nor imagine, that which we do not have the means to sense.

-mr.klein.home.comcast.net

[lori]

Hi, I just found out about the Quantum diaries blogs because it is mentioned in the newest issue of Science. Currently I am a ph.d. student of chemical oceanography. Blogging is such a curious new and exciting universe...I look forward to reading yours!