Does only the application really matter?

[Delong]

I majored in a science in college and a few years after college I think that engineering and applications are the only thing that make math and science relevant to society. I mean otherwise they're all just head knowledge and nothing justifies why society as a whole should keep them around. Shamanism is arguably just head knowledge and so I reason that anything that doesn't bring about consistent results doesn't have a place in our society. So enlightened students in college should think about application above all else then if this is true.

I'm thinking about this because I want to go to graduate school for science. but I'm thinking more and more about how I can gear my education towards a concrete application ( like clean energy for the USDE ). Really this is just my own philosophizing but I wanted to hear other peoples' thoughts. thanks.

 

[QuantumQuest]

I cannot but state the obvious here: both "head knowledge" - as you put it, and application of knowledge are important.

I think that engineering and applications are the only thing that make math and science relevant to society

Sure, but what if there were no theoretical ideas and studies already in place? We cannot take it as something anyway existent, because there are great people behind this who have spent countless hours of studying and thinking. I don't underestimate in any way, what engineering has achieved so far, but it's just as important as theoretical ideas and it's better to see this in a statistical way for a clear picture.

Now, regarding what to pursue, one or the other, it's a question regarding inclination and the skill set that someone has.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Here are my thoughts:

1. It's possible to be proud of one's own accomplishments without belittling others'.
2. You even might wait until having some actual accomplishments of your own before belittling others'. Just sayin'.
3. Your argument reflects more on you than the people you are attacking.

 

[micromass]

I majored in a science in college and a few years after college I think that engineering and applications are the only thing that make math and science relevant to society. I mean otherwise they're all just head knowledge and nothing justifies why society as a whole should keep them around. Shamanism is arguably just head knowledge and so I reason that anything that doesn't bring about consistent results doesn't have a place in our society. So enlightened students in college should think about application above all else then if this is true.

I'm thinking about this because I want to go to graduate school for science. but I'm thinking more and more about how I can gear my education towards a concrete application ( like clean energy for the USDE ). Really this is just my own philosophizing but I wanted to hear other peoples' thoughts. thanks.

Agreed 100%! Developing a new nuclear device which will kill thousands of people instantly and leave many other dying of horrible wounds or growing up without parents or loved once, that's way more important than finding out where life came from. I'm glad you're so enlightened!

 

[Dishsoap]

Nowhere do I see the OP attacking anyone, but what I do urge him to consider are the countless inventions/applications that were preceded by theoretical work that seemed to have no purpose.

 

[micromass]

Nowhere do I see the OP attacking anyone, but what I do urge him to consider are the countless inventions/applications that were preceded by theoretical work that seemed to have no purpose.

Right, but that's missing the point. The point to me is that theoretical work is important even if there would never be applications at all. We're still looking for how life started from nonliving materials, and we want to find the answers regardless of what useful tools it can give us. The same is true for theoretical physics or math.

 

[Delong]

Agreed 100%! Developing a new nuclear device which will kill thousands of people instantly and leave many other dying of horrible wounds or growing up without parents or loved once, that's way more important than finding out where life came from. I'm glad you're so enlightened!

ROFL! Talk about a bolt from the blue! To be honest though I think the atom bomb was OVERALL a useful invention.

 

[micromass]

ROFL! Talk about a bolt from the blue! To be honest though I'm glad the atom bomb was used because I am of Chinese descent and those japanese were horribly mistreating my ancestors.

Yep, killing thousands of innocent Japanese civilians (including children) and slave workers in order to take revenge on what the army did. I'm glad too.

 

[Delong]

Anyways everyone I want to follow up my post with agreeing with everyone that I do think theory and intellectual exploration are important. I mean I personally find math and science more interesting than engineering. I was just thinking of in a more enlightened sense what is important and not just what is interesting. And I see that as more concrete fields of application like medicine, construction, energy, food, transportation, etc.

I do love math and science but I just want to approach them in a more enlightened way that keeps in mind the better interests of humanity is all.

 

[micromass]

I do love math and science but I just want to approach them in a more enlightened way that keeps in mind the better interests of humanity is all.

Sure. But you could state that opinion without insulting a lot of people by calling your opinion "enlightened", implying indirectly that the people who are busy with intellectual pursuit is not. We get that you feel happy serving the needs of humanity. You need to acknowledge that that is your point of view/

 

[Vanadium 50]

Nowhere do I see the OP attacking anyone.

nothing justifies why society as a whole should keep them around.

This.

Singed,
One of the Great Unenlightened

 

[axmls]

No one even knew what the applications of electricity were at first. If you know how your research was going to turn out, then you're not doing anything new.

These contests where people compare whose field is more valuable (or more difficult, or less valuable, etc.) are rarely a topic of conversation among actual professionals, because they usually recognize the impact other fields can have on their own. It seems only people who aren't in these fields actually try to make these comparisons.

Do what's interesting to you. That's what you'll probably find easiest.

 

[Delong]

This.

Are you guys really construing my question as an attack? Like seriously I'm not trying to take a personal stab against science or academia. I'm more of just asking is it science that helps society or engineering even though OBVIOUSLY science is involved either way.

 

[Delong]

Right, but that's missing the point. The point to me is that theoretical work is important even if there would never be applications at all. We're still looking for how life started from nonliving materials, and we want to find the answers regardless of what useful tools it can give us. The same is true for theoretical physics or math.

Basic science and theory have their place. I don't think we need to annihilate entire fields of human thought. My real question is about what is REALLY important to society not just what deserves to have a place and all I mean yea anyway stuff.

 

[micromass]

Define "important to society".

 

[Delong]

Define "important to society".

I suppose the easiest way to answer that is what other people are willing to pay you to do.

 

[micromass]

I suppose the easiest way to answer that is what other people are willing to pay you to do.

I get paid to do pure math. I'm useful!

 

[Vanadium 50]

Like seriously I'm not trying to take a personal stab against science or academia.

Then you might not want to question our very existence ("nothing justifies why society as a whole should keep them around") or claiming that you are more enlightened than us.

 

[symbolipoint]

...? Like seriously I'm not trying to take a personal stab against science or academia. I'm more of just asking is it science that helps society or engineering even though OBVIOUSLY science is involved either way.

?

Yes.(EDIT: A few words from the above quote were removed)

 

[Gullik]

These contests where people compare whose field is more valuable (or more difficult, or less valuable, etc.) are rarely a topic of conversation among actual professionals, because they usually recognize the impact other fields can have on their own. It seems only people who aren't in these fields actually try to make these comparisons.

While this is true, it is also a debated amongst government and politicians. Which has great outcomes for funding.

This prevailing view of applicability (in my country atleast) has had a negative impact on science.

Answer to original question:
I've always felt that engineering /applicable science has short term gains, while basic science/theoretical (by this I mean theoretical within a field) can have long term gains.

If the focus is always on what can produce results now, the long term progress is slowed.

Edit:added stuff. Stupid tablet an italics

 

[symbolipoint]

Engineering to develop without the "head knowledge" on which such development depends -

Not good. Very little progress.

 

[Delong]

I get paid to do pure math. I'm useful!

May I ask who is paying you and why they are paying you? I doubt the only thing they want from you is just pure intellectual knowledge...

 

[micromass]

I get paid by a grant of the European Union. I have no idea what else they want outside of pure intellectual knowledge...

 

[Delong]

Then you might not want to question our very existence ("nothing justifies why society as a whole should keep them around") or claiming that you are more enlightened than us.

There's nothing wrong or offensive with asking why something is important. If I'm not mistaken essentially all funding is achieved by answering that very question. I don't claim to be more enlightened I am just TRYING to be more enlightened about what society will most support me to go to school for.

All this time on this site I thought you were a grown man.

 

[Vanadium 50]

There's nothing wrong or offensive with asking why something is important.

True. But you're not asking questions; you are making statements. (*nothing justifies why society as a whole should keep them around" or calling your opinion "enlightened", implying indirectly that the people who are busy with intellectual pursuit are not)

All this time on this site I thought you were a grown man.

Remember when I said "Your argument reflects more on you than the people you are attacking"? This is a good example of that.

 

[symbolipoint]

To pretend to put thoughts in his head, maybe O.P. wants to know the justification for pure science being important. Or, how to justify the goals of pure science.

The answer could be very broadly:

• To explore, because that is what humans like to do
• To support continued growth and development in engineering and technology

 

[ZapperZ]

Dishsoap has stated something that @Delong has not acknowledged, and it is why it is VERY difficult and very dangerous to put a premium on an obvious application and importance.

How did everyone back in the early 1900's knew that quantum mechanics was going to be "useful" and "important"? All they were working on at that time was something purely theoretical an esoteric, and possibly explain the photoelectric effect and blackbody radiation. How did we know when we played around with particle accelerators and particle colliders that the understanding of these phenonema, which started off as pure, basic science, would have applications ranging from our synchrotron light sources to medical therapy?

Here is a FACT: You just never know where a seemingly esoteric knowledge will turn into, or will spawn out, in the future.

Here is another FACT: Many ideas that started off as pure knowledge with no obvious applications or direct importance have been shown later on to be the basis of many important advancements in technology, medicine, and enlightenment.

Do we agree right off the bat on those two facts that I stated? Because if we do, then this thread is done and has been sufficiently addressed. If not, then where is the disagreement?

BTW, why is this an Academic Guidance topic? This is more of a Social Science/General Discussion topic.

Zz.

 

[Delong]

Dishsoap has stated something that @Delong has not acknowledged, and it is why it is VERY difficult and very dangerous to put a premium on an obvious application and importance.

How did everyone back in the early 1900's knew that quantum mechanics was going to be "useful" and "important"?

Quantum mechanics though ISN'T useful to human lives. It's the applications that are actually useful like synchrotron light sources and medical therapy. Of course the science helps us understand how it works. But that's not the same as making things that improve peoples' lives. Scientists are not the ones that actually make the technology that helps people. So in a way they're not doing anything directly helpful to people they're just working on intellectual puzzles.

I could also say that pure math was necessary for us to eventually get technology for television and rockets. And of course math was involved in a broad sense but what actually made those things were engineers and constructions works.

Here is a FACT: You just never know where a seemingly esoteric knowledge will turn into, or will spawn out, in the future.

Even if we accept that as true (which is disputable) it still doesn't counter my point that it's the applications that are what actually matters not the knowledge in and off itself.

Here is another FACT: Many ideas that started off as pure knowledge with no obvious applications or direct importance have been shown later on to be the basis of many important advancements in technology, medicine, and enlightenment.

advancements in Technology and Medicine have existed for thousands of years before modern science was invented. The science helps things overall but it's still technology and medicine that are actually helping peoples' lives.

[Do we agree right off the bat on those two facts that I stated? Because if we do, then this thread is done and has been sufficiently addressed. If not, then where is the disagreement?

You seem to treat the science to matter to the same level as the applications which I disagree with...

BTW, why is this an Academic Guidance topic?

I was applying for graduate school in a science but I wanted to philosophize about how I will actually be useful to society. And basically answer how I can get a job with my degree and stuff.[/QUOTE]

 

[Delong]

To pretend to put thoughts in his head, maybe O.P. wants to know the justification for pure science being important. Or, how to justify the goals of pure science.

The answer could be very broadly:

• To explore, because that is what humans like to do
• To support continued growth and development in engineering and technology

For the last time I'm not trying to argue away pure science or math. I do think these things have their importance at some level. I'm just trying to ask what is REALLY important. What does society actually care about at a higher level.

Or in other words how am I going to make a living by doing "pure" science?

 

[ZapperZ]

Quantum mechanics though ISN'T useful to human lives. It's the applications that are actually useful like synchrotron light sources and medical therapy. Of course the science helps us understand how it works. But that's not the same as making things that improve peoples' lives. Scientists are not the ones that actually make the technology that helps people. So in a way they're not doing anything directly helpful to people they're just working on intellectual puzzles.

There's a lot of things wrong here. Without QM, many of the things we have today won't exist. In other words, those "applications" were DERIVED directly out of QM. If QM was not present, those applications won't exist.

So how in the world were you able to deduce that it isn't useful? There are many applications that were not discovered via trial and error. They were PREDICTED using theories. No one would be looking for a positron if it weren't for Dirac pointing out that such a thing is there in the relavististic QM equations!

At this point, we are arguing about semantics. You seem to think that the person building the application is the ONLY entity that can be considered to be "useful". That's like saying the house is useful, but the tools that were used to build them are not.

If this is the point where we diverge, then it is a matter of taste and favorite color. It is no longer rational.

Zz.

 

[Crek]

No, of course not but on the otherhand science departments have gotten a way with a bunch of largely irrelevant areas of study instead of being directed towards actually solving problems.

 

[ZapperZ]

No, of course not but on the otherhand science departments have gotten a way with a bunch of largely irrelevant areas of study instead of being directed towards actually solving problems.

Such as what? What are these "irrelevant areas of study"?

Zz.

 

[e.bar.goum]

Such as what? What are these "irrelevant areas of study"?

Zz.

I'd also like to know, because I'm drawing a blank. Even something as esoteric sounding as "mathematical physics" can point to plenty of applications (topological insulators, etc).

The simple fact is that fundamental science often has applications that could not have been dreamed of. Prior to 1950, if you set out to make a better way of detecting cancer, you would not have invented the MRI. Without the fundamental physics of spin echoes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_echo ) you can't get far. There are hundreds of other examples. I can guarantee that you have made use of laser technology today. Not to mention quantum mechanics.

Here's the deal: Society needs applied scientists to take fundamental discoveries and turn them into new technologies. But society also needs fundamental scientists to make those fundamental discoveries in the first place, otherwise the well soon runs dry. Perhaps the former sounds like a more appealing career to the OP, and that's just fine, but the OP shouldn't deny the importance of the latter.

 

[Delong]

="Perhaps the former sounds like a more appealing career to the OP, and that's just fine, but the OP shouldn't deny the importance of the latter.

I never said it appealed to me more. I chose science over engineering and I still do. I'm just trying to think more holistically about my own long term job security and how I can go about my education in a way that most convinces society I should be employed...

 

[micromass]

how I can go about my education in a way that most convinces society I should be employed...

That is a very very different question than the one in the OP!