Is Theoretical Science Driven by Selfishness?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the perceived selfishness of human responses to knowledge and the necessity of practical benefits in fields like mathematics and science. Participants argue that while many dismiss advanced theories due to their lack of immediate utility, similar dismissals are not made for the arts, such as music and poetry, which provide emotional and entertainment value. The conversation explores the definition of "practicality," questioning whether it should encompass only technological advancements or also the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. There is a sentiment that society prioritizes immediate benefits over deeper understanding, leading to a stagnation in fundamental scientific exploration. The debate touches on the emotional satisfaction derived from both scientific inquiry and artistic expression, suggesting that both can be valuable even without direct applications. Ultimately, the discussion reflects a tension between the desire for practical outcomes and the intrinsic value of knowledge and creativity.
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Messages
4,410
Reaction score
555
Is, selfish, if it does not give some immediate or short term advantage no one gives it a thought, how many of the total population of Earth give a single thought to some grand unification theory?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Human response to anything is selfish.
The usual reply to this is to point out the practical benefits of eg. new developments in maths but why do you have to justify it!
There is no practical benefit in musicians or poets why does there have to be for maths?
 
mgb_phys said:
Human response to anything is selfish.
The usual reply to this is to point out the practical benefits of eg. new developments in maths but why do you have to justify it!
There is no practical benefit in musicians or poets why does there have to be for maths?


Just a step forward in understanding some as yet mysterious aspect of the universe.
 
mgb_phys said:
There is no practical benefit in musicians or poets why does there have to be for maths?
Because it costs a lot of money (re: physics)? Because (unlike most arts) very few people appreciate it? You're probably going to point out cases where we spend more & accomplish less, but that isn't justification for this case.

Truth is I don't know where I stand on this. I read an article some time ago that argued research into terawatt level physics isn't going to be applicable anytime soon. So why do it now when it costs so much? I feel like I have to agree; any argument for such research smacks of religiosity.

But the fact that I find them compelling just makes me human, right? I take solace in the fact that my opinion on this doesn't matter at all.
 
Thrice, your opinion should matter along with every human beings on this planet.
 
Not according to http://origin.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/study_38_percent_of_people article, no :-p
 
Most people (at least here in my country) doesn't understand what is science, the have a mental picture of a bunch of people with test tubes, they think that looking at the world in a scientific manner is a "Cold" and "No-Feelings" way to do it. They prefer to trust in the horoscope.
 
mgb_phys said:
There is no practical benefit in musicians or poets why does there have to be for maths?

Depends on what you mean by practical, I guess, but I find music to be great for relaxing, motivating myself, or just letting loose. Just for example, I think the Beatles have done more for my life than any single modern convenience (with the possible exception of the computer).

Similarly, some people derive great pleasure from working with mathematical equations. Perhaps before we address the practicality of science and math, we should ask what we mean by "practical".
 
SpaceTiger said:
Depends on what you mean by practical, I guess, but I find music to be great for relaxing, motivating myself, or just letting loose. Just for example, I think the Beatles have done more for my life than any single modern convenience (with the possible exception of the computer).

Similarly, some people derive great pleasure from working with mathematical equations. Perhaps before we address the practicality of science and math, we should ask what we mean by "practical".

Practical means a way to advance, in my mind, music and the arts are just a distraction from the realities, although i admit that rock is almost as good as, (whats out there).
 
  • #10
wolram said:
Practical means a way to advance, in my mind, music and the arts are just a distraction from the realities, although i admit that rock is almost as good as, (whats out there).

Here we're left asking what it is we're trying to advance. People are often referring to technological development when they talk about "advancing", but then technology is generally a means to an end. Which end are we most interested in? Convenience? Overall knowledge? Defense?
 
  • #11
SpaceTiger said:
Here we're left asking what it is we're trying to advance. People are often referring to technological development when they talk about "advancing", but then technology is generally a means to an end. Which end are we most interested in? Convenience? Overall knowledge? Defense?

Overall knowledge, i have no care for the advancment of i pods, personal entertainment,
luxury items, us humans should not give a heck about them, we should only think about what is (out there).
 
  • #12
wolram said:
Is, selfish, if it does not give some immediate or short term advantage no one gives it a thought, how many of the total population of Earth give a single thought to some grand unification theory?

I think about that everyday---
 
  • #13
wolram said:
Overall knowledge, i have no care for the advancment of i pods, personal entertainment,

Then, for you, science is maximally practical. What is the progress of science but an increase in our collective knowledge?
 
  • #14
SpaceTiger said:
Then, for you, science is maximally practical. What is the progress of science but an increase in our collective knowledge?


That is the point, we are not collecting enough, and people are deabting what we have to death, we need more infomation.
.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
wolram said:
That is the point, we are not collecting enough, and people are deabting what we have to death, we need more infomation.
.

What's the quetion?
 
  • #16
mgb_phys said:
Human response to anything is selfish.
The usual reply to this is to point out the practical benefits of eg. new developments in maths but why do you have to justify it!
There is no practical benefit in musicians or poets why does there have to be for maths?

There is definitely a practical benefit to music and poetry; entertainment. They inspire an emotional response in people. Sometimes they are even thought provoking, but the emotional response alone is enough for people to enjoy them.

There doesn't have to be a practical use for math, but I would hope that people who study it at least find it entertaining in the same sense that others might find music or poetry entertaining.

zoobyshoe said:
What's the quetion?
It's your turn?
 
  • #17
zoobyshoe said:
What's the quetion?

Why we seem to be stuck in a technological but not fundamental advance, why we spend billions on rubbish when we could spend it on exploration.

It may be our peak time to explore, there is the money, but will there be 50yrs down the road?
 
  • #18
Huckleberry said:
There doesn't have to be a practical use for math, but I would hope that people who study it at least find it entertaining in the same sense that others might find music or poetry entertaining.

I often wonder if the hermit-like academic who spends hours perfecting the details of an obscure theory is really happy, or just indulging an unhealthy obsession...

...not that I have any personal experience with this. *cough*

Maybe we need a support group, like Theorists Anonymous.
 
Back
Top