Dear Jeff,
Hmm ... I'm a bit confused ... it would help if you would explain why you
think I'm not wearing my "Scientific Researcher" hat well.
The scientific endeavor can be broadly categorized into two branches:
1) Basic research, and 2) Applied research.
It appeared that your previous posts were attacking Basic research as
"un-useful," because this kind of research is conducted for the sake of
research alone, with no practical objective besides gaining knowledge in
mind. I was defending the value of Basic research in my last post along
two fronts:
1) I tried to explain that sometimes, very useful things arise from Basic
research, even though there was no explicit practical intention during the
pursuit of this knowledge. In addition to the examples of very useful
things which arose from Basic research which I gave above, I should also
mention electricity. In the early years of electricity, it was a subject
of purely Basic research. Electricity was just a curiosity, and
scientists wanted to study it only for the sake of studying it.
Indeed, when Chancellor Gladstone asked Michael Faraday, "But, after all,
what use is it?", Faraday replied, "I do not know, Sir, but you will
probably tax it someday."
And when Prime Minister Peel asked of a discovery concerning electrical
effects, "What good is it?", Faraday replied, "What good is a new-born baby?"
2) My other point was that even if no practical application comes out of
Basic research, your original attitude that pursuing knowledge for the
sake of knowledge is a waste of time is highly judgmental. Who is to
judge something is useful or not? Is a work of art or music useful? Is a
sunset or a meteor useful? Is someone dying of cancer or suffering
from Down's Syndrome useful? History is filled with those who have used
this kind of attitude to justify horrendous actions.
The universe is abundantly rich in all its forms, and it does not care
whether something is useful or not. The scientist who conducts Basic
research studies the universe just because it is there, not because she
wants to convert it into something that will serve her. There's nothing
wrong with the utilitarian approach of the Applied researcher, but there's
certainly nothing wasteful about the efforts of the Basic researcher.
Indeed, an objective consideration of the universe quickly convinces you
that if researchers were proportioned according to the kinds of phenomena
in the universe, then there would be vastly more Basic researchers than
Applied ones.
So, you said you rejected this line of reasoning, that it did not work for
you. It would be nice to know why, so that I may try to clarify.
Best,
HF
