Does only the application really matter?

  • Context: Studying 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Delong
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Application Matter
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
Sign up Log in
45 replies · 5K views
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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Delong
Physics news on Phys.org
ZapperZ said:
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.
 
="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 said:
That is a very very different question than the one in the OP!

My OP is the same question just framed in a more philosophical light. But in terms of practical relevance I'm just trying to maximize my job security while pursuing higher education...
 
micromass said:
Sure. So what job skills do you have right now?
Well I have a lot of experience in molecular biology and analytical chemistry. I'm also pretty good at mental math although this may be nothing.
My dream goal right now is to work in the U.S.D.E. in the field of bio-fuels. In my mind this is a perfect way to make myself useful to society given my skillset. Instead of thinking "research" I've been challenging myself to think in terms "production” or "manufacture"．I was thinking maybe this will make me more employable. BUt I don't know whatever
 
ZapperZ justified both pure science and applications very well. If one feels strongly about finding and creating applicable results then one should learn some applications, such as Engineering, and so many of other things which are practical. If one is worried about being employable, then one should give the effort to learn how to design things, how to make processes which are useful in the real world which people will use. Engineers use the results of scientific knowledge. Someone like ZapperZ did not learn just overnight how scientific knowledge connects to applications, but such people as he studied and practiced for many years to learn how they are connected.
 
There's an important distinction to be made between the ultimate value to society of specific scientific pursuits and the more pragmatic issue of career opportunities and financial reimbursement.

From the point of view of career selection, it's important that you ask how easy it will be to convince someone to give you money to do what it is you're learning to do. In that context, application tends to rule the day. As a general rule, more people will be willing to give you money to do things like build bridges, program computers, cure their diseases or help them find more oil. It is generally more difficult to convince people to give you money to measure gravitational waves or model galactic collisions.

But all successful societies recognize the intrinsic value of academic pursuits. That's why we pay taxes to establish universities. That's the reason d'etre for large funding agencies that provide grants to support these "head knowledge" pursuits. Laypeople have no way of accurately assessing which scientific ideas are worth channelling millions of dollars into and which ones are the musings of crackpots with amped up vocabularies. But most of them know that there are some really good ideas out there and they are worth pursuing, so they are for the most part happy that some of their money is used to support these efforts and they set up independent panels of experts to assess ideas as they emerge. As a result, you have a set amount of money to support such things and some pretty fierce competition for it. The good grant writers are the ones who are able to make this connection and make people understand the value of work that may otherwise seem of only academic interest.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Delong
Delong said:
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.

Whats important to society? Reproduction. As it turns out, line cooks are just as successful at reproducing as engineers - maybe more so. The whole premise that certain fields of study are more useful to society, or trying to justify basic research where applications have been found, is irrelevant.

You get one life, study what you want and let others study their own interests. Ideally, without needing to feel one is superior - it isn't.
 
@Choppy so far I like this response the best thanks.

I can see now that both basic research and application are important and have their place in society. I think I'm just giving into post college anxiety and feel like I have to choose certain fields as more important than others when they all have their own importance and stuff...
 
Choppy said:
There's an important distinction to be made between the ultimate value to society of specific scientific pursuits and the more pragmatic issue of career opportunities and financial reimbursement.

From the point of view of career selection, it's important that you ask how easy it will be to convince someone to give you money to do what it is you're learning to do. In that context, application tends to rule the day. As a general rule, more people will be willing to give you money to do things like build bridges, program computers, cure their diseases or help them find more oil. It is generally more difficult to convince people to give you money to measure gravitational waves or model galactic collisions.

But all successful societies recognize the intrinsic value of academic pursuits. That's why we pay taxes to establish universities. That's the reason d'etre for large funding agencies that provide grants to support these "head knowledge" pursuits. Laypeople have no way of accurately assessing which scientific ideas are worth channelling millions of dollars into and which ones are the musings of crackpots with amped up vocabularies. But most of them know that there are some really good ideas out there and they are worth pursuing, so they are for the most part happy that some of their money is used to support these efforts and they set up independent panels of experts to assess ideas as they emerge. As a result, you have a set amount of money to support such things and some pretty fierce competition for it. The good grant writers are the ones who are able to make this connection and make people understand the value of work that may otherwise seem of only academic interest.

Out of the universities that exist, how many contribute substantially to new knowledge? I suspect only a handful do most of the heavy lifting while the rest waste money and pretend they are doing something productive. In Mathematics there have been a small, small percentage of mathematicians that have ever really done anything important.
 
Crek said:
Out of the universities that exist, how many contribute substantially to new knowledge? I suspect only a handful do most of the heavy lifting while the rest waste money and pretend they are doing something productive. In Mathematics there have been a small, small percentage of mathematicians that have ever really done anything important.

Sources? Evidence?