Latest update in the search for the Higgs boson

[Leoreth]

That's a valid point of view, but I don't share it. Science gets funded because it is useful, both practically and politically. In order to make those who send the money care, you need to impress them with something. That's what pretty pictures from Mars rovers, space probes, and the ISS are for. Plus, human spaceflight is not useless scientifically and it does help to advance our technology.

Pretty pictures != useful.

 

[Winner]

Pretty pictures != useful.

And you wanted to say.... what, exactly?

 

[Mise]

Pretty pictures are very useful if you want to raise money and generate interest from the public.

 

[Winner]

Pretty pictures are very useful if you want to raise money and generate interest from the public.

Which is what I said earlier. A good photo from Mars shown in major media outlets will do the planetary sciences more good than a hundred university lectures. Public interest one way or another translates into public funding.

 

[Mise]

Yeah, I'm agreeing with you ^^

 

[Terxpahseyton]

The "pretty-pictures-factor" seems to exclusively apply on space exploration, though. And in that context, pretty pictures can just mean that money is taken from scientific projects which are merrily funded for use to scientific projects which are funded for pretty pictures.

 

[Save_Ferris]

Pretty pictures apply for new species as well.

 

[Algeroth]

I can't remember when it was the last time when we had some photogenic new species.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Plenty of colourful frogs and amphibians have been found lately. I have a professor who worked with Kihansi Spray Toads, which were only discovered in 1999... and went extinct in the wild 5 years later.

And regarding pretty pictures, CERN certainly isn't above putting colourful collision traces in prominent places on their website.

 

[CKS]

Those itty-bitty chameleons are really cute.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Of course other fields of science work with visuals and of course those visuals are used to grab intention, but I don't see any tangible link to public funding in those cases. Whereas in case of say the Hubble telescope or the moon landing or other forms of space exploration, funding was apparently strongly swayed by pretty (moving) pictures.
Saying, to depend on pretty pictures for funding isn't a noraml science thing, it is a thing that uniquely applies to space exploration. The reason is obvious: A unique mix of strange sights and shady usefulness.

 

[Winner]

I used "pretty pictures" as an umbrella term for all kinds of publicity-raising things. CERN managed to generate good publicity without showing any pictures at all (for obvious reasons). Given the complexity of their line of research, it's a small miracle - though having a BAM (big a*s machine) particle accelerator at their disposal certainly helps to attract attention

The banal point I am making here is that you simply need to be able to sell your work to people who have no damn idea about what you're doing. Some scientists would rather live in their bubble, pursue their "pure research", and ignore the ignorant outside world - but usually that's not how it works. Other fields have different things to help them gain publicity - the biologists can show pretty animals, the geologists have beautiful crystals, the chemists can do explosions, etc. etc.

 

[Leoreth]

I was saying that the scientific field that produces the prettiest pictures isn't the most useful one.

Of course I don't disagree with your statement that pretty pictures create publicity and are therefore politically preferred. But I also inferred from your post that you don't only state this as a fact, but approve of this situation - i.e. spaceflight is important because it can produce better publicity (NASA is doing it wrong at the moment then, by the way ).

And I disagree with that. In an ideal world, science funding should go to those fields that are expected to give the most useful results.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

What payoff time do we want in this ideal scenario? Many areas of science have long-term payouts with limited short-term gain.

 

[Mise]

TBH I'm not sure the whole "science is only worth funding if it's useful" is any different to "science is only worth funding if it is popular with the public". I mean, presumably, a 'useful' piece of research is one that generates a financial return for the people who funded the research. That is, there is a market for the output generated by that research. But in order for there to be a market for the output, then the output must be popular with the public. So I'm not really seeing much difference between those two statements.

Unless you mean that it is useful in terms of increasing our understanding of the universe? Well, pretty pictures of Mars increase the public's understanding of Mars. So is there any difference there? I'm not sure that "useful" is any different to "popular".

 

[Terxpahseyton]

There is the "Oh that is cool!" useful and there is the practical-application-in-material production-or-directly-in-the-lives-of-people-useful (knowing more about the universe won't effect my live in any significance unless I am a die-hard space-geek and my welfare depends on progress in this field as a consequence). Usually, only the latter is actually meant with the word "useful".

 

[AvalancheMaster]

Well, somebody has to finance the research. And, believe me, the people who finance have no idea what the results of the research mean.

So, this somebody, the man (or people) who gives the money, should be impressed in a way. The results should be simplified, and in many cases pretty pictures do simplify them in a great way. Even if the pictures have nothing to do with the results, they are still pretty useful - they draw public attention, which draws additional funding, which results in more research capability.

That's how it works, and I see nothing wrong about this.

 

[Mise]

"practical-application-in-material production-or-directly-in-the-lives-of-people-useful" just means "there are people who are willing to spend money on this piece of technology". If nobody is willing to spend money on it, then it can't possibly be useful. If the research was useful then there would be a market for its output, and it would have no problem finding funding. That's the first point.

Second point: Are iPhones useful? Sure they are, but most people don't buy them solely for the utility, but because "OMG THIS IS REALLY COOL". If all they wanted was a device that did all the things that an iPhone does, they'd buy any number of equally useful but less expensive phone. The market for iPhones is so large partly because iPhones are marketed much better than competitors' phones. This is just the way things are, and I see no reason why science funding should be any different.

Third point: "Purists" (a.k.a. elitists) will say that science should be funded for the sake of learning about the universe. Well, pretty pictures of Mars teaches people about Mars, so surely that ought to be funded... What's so special about learning about the Higgs Boson compared with learning about the surface of Mars? They are both increasing our knowledge of the universe, and I think most people are much more concerned about the giant red blob they can see in the sky on some clear nights. That's the kind of universe that people want to learn about, and I find the "purist" argument nothing more than arrogant elitism. As if what the elite deems "worthy" of learning is some objective fact...

 

[Thorgalaeg]

"practical-application-in-material production-or-directly-in-the-lives-of-people-useful" just means "there are people who are willing to spend money on this piece of technology". If nobody is willing to spend money on it, then it can't possibly be useful. If the research was useful then there would be a market for its output, and it would have no problem finding funding. That's the first point.

Second point: Are iPhones useful? Sure they are, but most people don't buy them solely for the utility, but because "OMG THIS IS REALLY COOL". If all they wanted was a device that did all the things that an iPhone does, they'd buy any number of equally useful but less expensive phone. The market for iPhones is so large partly because iPhones are marketed much better than competitors' phones. This is just the way things are, and I see no reason why science funding should be any different.

Third point: "Purists" (a.k.a. elitists) will say that science should be funded for the sake of learning about the universe. Well, pretty pictures of Mars teaches people about Mars, so surely that ought to be funded... What's so special about learning about the Higgs Boson compared with learning about the surface of Mars? They are both increasing our knowledge of the universe, and I think most people are much more concerned about the giant red blob they can see in the sky on some clear nights. That's the kind of universe that people want to learn about, and I find the "purist" argument nothing more than arrogant elitism. As if what the elite deems "worthy" of learning is some objective fact...

Knowing what matter, space, time and the whole universe really is made of is not more relevant than knowing what a insignificant planet surface is made of? Sure both increase our knowledge of the universe, but they are not even in the same league, not even if they find some ET fossils right there.

 

[Winner]

I was saying that the scientific field that produces the prettiest pictures isn't the most useful one.

Of course I don't disagree with your statement that pretty pictures create publicity and are therefore politically preferred. But I also inferred from your post that you don't only state this as a fact, but approve of this situation - i.e. spaceflight is important because it can produce better publicity (NASA is doing it wrong at the moment then, by the way ).

I am simply saying what the situation is like today. I don't necessary approve or disapprove. In an ideal world (TM), we'd spend about 20 times more money on science and 2000 less money on stupid things, but you know how it is.

As for spaceflight, I see it as one of the most important things we can do. I don't give a damn whether it brings immediate scientific benefits. It is not meant to do that, even though it often does.

And I disagree with that. In an ideal world, science funding should go to those fields that are expected to give the most useful results.

And I disagree with that Well, at least, I don't agree without caveats - if we only funded the fields which are expected to give "useful results", we'd move forward pretty slowly. Today, it's about multi-disciplinary approach... which is, BTW, why space exploration/spaceflight is so important, it brings together probably the biggest number of scientific/technical fields of all human activities.

Third point: "Purists" (a.k.a. elitists) will say that science should be funded for the sake of learning about the universe. Well, pretty pictures of Mars teaches people about Mars, so surely that ought to be funded... What's so special about learning about the Higgs Boson compared with learning about the surface of Mars? They are both increasing our knowledge of the universe, and I think most people are much more concerned about the giant red blob they can see in the sky on some clear nights. That's the kind of universe that people want to learn about, and I find the "purist" argument nothing more than arrogant elitism. As if what the elite deems "worthy" of learning is some objective fact...

Exactly.