The Aim of Science

[Brighteye]

You ivory tower intellectuals must not lose touch with the world of industrial growth and hard currency. It is all very well and good to pursue these high-minded scientific theories, but research grants are expensive and you must justify your existence by providing not only knowledge, but concrete and profitable applications as well.

CEO Nwabudike Morgan
"The Ethics of Greed"

This is one of the dumbest statements I have ever heard. Anyone who is familar with the history of man will realize that scientific discovery has always led to practical application and that having scientists think about concrete and profitable applications would surely kill this golden goose.

I agree. Scientific knowledge is its own reward. Not only this, but if you only fund research into cancer, you're only going to get one approach to solving cancer.
'High-minded' theories are worth investigating not just for the purpose of advancing knowledge, but also because the unexpected applications and relationships between things are often the most groundbreaking, with the most potential for new practical applications. If you only fund one avenue of thought and narrow-mindedly neglect anything else, then the results you'll get will be narrow-minded and ignore anything else.

Science is a technique for discovering empirical truth: techniques have no purpose of their own, and simply serve the purpose we use them for.

 

[brennan]

I'd largely agree with Aneeshm there. But the 'complete understanding' should in no way be confused with meaning 'Perfect knowledge of every insignificant fact'. Once science understands how to work something out its job is done. Calculating the position of every dust mote is not the way it works.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

This is one of the dumbest statements I have ever heard. Anyone who is familar with the history of man will realize that scientific discovery has always led to practical application and that having scientists think about concrete and profitable applications would surely kill this golden goose.

Huh what?

All it is saying is that you shouldn't invest in research that isn't expected to profit you later. A whole lot lot of scientific research is being done right now because some company thinks it will pay off in the long run. Also I don't care about scientific research that provides no practical application. Most notably the more esoteric string theory stuff which has been the subject of discussion before.

 

[brennan]

'Blue skies' research is often the most profitable. Nobody knew of a use for lasers when they were invented...

 

[Che Guava]

Huh what?

All it is saying is that you shouldn't invest in research that isn't expected to profit you later. A whole lot lot of scientific research is being done right now because some company thinks it will pay off in the long run. Also I don't care about scientific research that provides no practical application. Most notably the more esoteric string theory stuff which has been the subject of discussion before.

The problem is that research into applied sciences tends to be a lot shorter sighted than more pure sciences. String Theory might not sell widgits today, but discoveries in that field could help open up some of the most important questions about the universe.

Sometimes the business drives the science, sometimes the science drives the business. Neither side should be ignored.

 

[Mark1031]

Huh what?

All it is saying is that you shouldn't invest in research that isn't expected to profit you later. A whole lot lot of scientific research is being done right now because some company thinks it will pay off in the long run. Also I don't care about scientific research that provides no practical application. Most notably the more esoteric string theory stuff which has been the subject of discussion before.

You are wrong. First point, companies don't do a lot of research, they do development of basic ideas largely provided by public sector university research. As an example, where do you think the entire probably trillion $$ biotech industry came from. It was not from some swashbuckling entrepreneur risking it all on a great idea. This is the great capitalist fantasy. It was from government funded scientists studying esoteric enzymes that cut DNA in bacteria. Where do you think cholesterol lowering drugs came from? Again government research. Sure the drug companies developed the chemicals that you take but the knowledge for what biology to target comes from esoteric research, the companies don’t do this research themselves. If the government stopped funding research there would simply be a complete halt to new innovation. It is simply not financially viable to fund very basic research where breakthroughs come from. Oh and by the way where did Google come from---Stanford, I’m sure with a government grant for the researchers.

 

[.Shane.]

So why aint science like investigating the distance in millimeters between every piece of dust on my desk? It's a thing that is unknown, yet we seem utterly disinterested in it.

This is not a question of science. Its a question of measurement. You're not dealing w/ anything "unknown" in terms of understanding how the universe/nature works.

TBH, I'm not really sure what the point of this thread is, seems like an exercise in semantics. /shrug

 

[aneeshm]

This the fallacy that most western thought operates under

But, you will note, and I will note for you if you did not, not a fallacy which my statement was subject to.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

You are wrong. First point, companies don't do a lot of research, they do development of basic ideas largely provided by public sector university research. As an example, where do you think the entire probably trillion $$ biotech industry came from. It was not from some swashbuckling entrepreneur risking it all on a great idea. This is the great capitalist fantasy. It was from government funded scientists studying esoteric enzymes that cut DNA in bacteria. Where do you think cholesterol lowering drugs came from? Again government research. Sure the drug companies developed the chemicals that you take but the knowledge for what biology to target comes from esoteric research, the companies don’t do this research themselves. If the government stopped funding research there would simply be a complete halt to new innovation. It is simply not financially viable to fund very basic research where breakthroughs come from. Oh and by the way where did Google come from---Stanford, I’m sure with a government grant for the researchers.

Why must everything degenerate into a debate over capitalism? I also don't want to argue private vs. public research and I certainly wouldn't argue that a trillion dollar biotech company or google aren't profitable or useful.

I don't really mind the government spending money on research since this is a extremely small amount of money(comparably) and there are worse things that money is being spent on. Nevertheless, much of what you said is just wrong. Plenty of private research is being done and no, there wouldn't be a "complete halt to new innovation" if government stopped funding things.

 

[Combat Ingrid]

the aim of science is to get grant $$ and recognition and awards from your peers.

It's already indirectly included in your aims, but I think it's a too important sub-aim to not be mentioned: to publish papers in journals with high impact factors

 

[Mark1031]

Why must everything degenerate into a debate over capitalism? I also don't want to argue private vs. public research and I certainly wouldn't argue that a trillion dollar biotech company or google aren't profitable or useful.

I don't really mind the government spending money on research since this is a extremely small amount of money(comparably) and there are worse things that money is being spent on. Nevertheless, much of what you said is just wrong. Plenty of private research is being done and no, there wouldn't be a "complete halt to new innovation" if government stopped funding things.

Sorry I don’t mean to make it a capitalist debate, I like capitalism and it is very effective in developing new ideas. I would acknowledge that without the venture capital firms there would also not be a biotech industry (or at least not as rapidly developed). I am most familiar with biological sciences so I don’t know how much research is done in corporate physical science. I do know that big drug companies now do almost no research in house but do development and clinical testing of drugs. Biotech does research, by and large not basic but applied, they are applying ideas and techniques developed in the public sector. When I said innovation would die I did not mean immediately. Our current knowledge and techniques would be played out to their logical ends but major innovation would end at some point. Basic science, funded by governments and to a much lesser extent non-profit foundations, is a global and moderately expensive undertaking. All information is put in the public domain and stimulates new ideas for people working anywhere in the world. Industrial research is secret and even if large companies could pour $$s into basic research (they can’t economically) the proprietary nature of the work would slow advancement to a stand still.

Basic scientists are not idiots studying the spacing of dust particles on Fifty’s desk. They are usually the first ones to recognize the practical benefits of their work. Look at who the founders of all the biotech companies are. The 2 sectors serve different purposes and have different approaches. Trying to impose the approach of one (must have immediate practical and financial benefit) on the other would kill them both in the long run.

 

[Fifty]

Pretty much every post in this thread (except azza's ) so far has been wrong, though some more obviously so than others. Some don't seem to even understand the question I'm asking.

In any case, tonight I'll try to explain why most of ya'll's answers are wrong (drawing upon the work of Phillip Kitcher), but be forewarned: I'm only going to respond to substantive critiques of the view I present, I'm not going to engage in the standard OT practice (perpetrated by the new-agers and the "logic" people roughly equally it seems) of arguing over a misconstrued characterization of the view. If you get the view wrong and respond based on that wrong understanding, I'm not going to spend 15 pages explaning it and going off on 400 tangeants in the meantime.

!!!STAY TUNED!!!

 

[gallego]

Pretty much every post in this thread so far has been wrong

Wrong according to you, or where's your Nobel Prize?

 

[Fifty]

Wrong according to you, or where's your Nobel Prize?

Wrong according to fairly simple (simple enough so as to make uber-expertise unnecessary) reasons. On an unrelated note, the reason I don't have a Nobel Prize is because the panel that decides the prize for Literature has refused to recognize the brilliance of my poem, the Ode to Poop.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Isn't science just here to establish rules so that we can observe things we want to know about?

 

[Abaddon]

curious drive for answeers

 

[WillJ]

The purpose of science is whatever scientists feel the purpose is. And they vary in their reasons, but most probably do science out of child-like curiosity.

 

[Fifty]

This the fallacy that most western thought operates under

says who!? EXPLAIN YORUSELF MISTAH BOZO!O!!!!!!!!

 

[gallego]

Wrong according to fairly simple (simple enough so as to make uber-expertise unnecessary) reasons. On an unrelated note, the reason I don't have a Nobel Prize is because the panel that decides the prize for Literature has refused to recognize the brilliance of my poem, the Ode to Poop.

Pity that they are so narrow-minded. But "wrong" is still a pretty big claim to make unless it's completely subjective, which all knowledge is anyway.

 

[Fifty]

knowledge isn't subjective. I doubt you understand either what knowledge is or what it is for something to have the property of "subjective". In any case, you need not participate in the rest of this thread if it doesn't suit your silly skeptical posturing.