Most important piece of scientific knowledge

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the preservation of scientific knowledge in the event of a cataclysm. Richard Feynman's atomic hypothesis is highlighted as a concise statement encapsulating vast information about the universe. However, participants debate the merits of preserving the scientific method over atomic theory, arguing that understanding how to conduct science is foundational for rediscovering knowledge. Suggestions include teaching basic mathematical concepts, such as the Pythagorean theorem, or practical skills like making clear glass, which could facilitate advancements in various scientific fields.The conversation also touches on the importance of germ theory and sanitation for human survival, emphasizing that practical knowledge may be more beneficial than abstract scientific concepts. Some participants express concerns about the potential misuse of scientific discoveries and suggest that moral considerations should accompany the transmission of knowledge. Overall, the thread explores the balance between theoretical knowledge and practical applications, with a focus on ensuring future generations can rebuild civilization effectively.
  • #51
tade said:
Yes, more. All there is to know.

Yea I agree, I was just being a jackass. :smile: but I do need to subtract "All there is to know", HA "they" wish! (and me too)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
Devils said:
Keep yourself and hands clean, observe sanitation in yourself, your food and water.

"The devils in the details" :smile: came to mind.
 
  • #53
Devils said:
Keep yourself and hands clean, observe sanitation in yourself, your food and water.

I think many modern-day humans still need to be reminded of this. :-p
 
  • #54
nitsuj said:
"The devils in the details" :smile: came to mind.

Don't make another post, otherwise you'll go over the lucky number. :smile:
 
  • #55
Borek said:
One of the things that stopped science for many hundreds years was the fact that experiments were considered unnecessary. So I would go with something like "scientific method & the nature is always right" - but I agree that first, it can be abused, second, you need a critical mass for things to get started.

Was it Plato who advocated lying in bed and thinking instead of performing experiments? And Aristotle was the young hotshot who believed otherwise?


epenguin said:
"The two divergent views" (I.e. the value of knowledge as an end in itself, against as a means to useful applications)
Some people do research for the first reason, in general, society wants it to be done for the second reason.

In addition, Einstein said "Many take to science out of a joyful sense of superior intellectual power; science is their own special sport to which they look for vivid experience and the satisfaction of ambition".


Speaking of practicality, the LHC costs 9 billion USD, how did they manage to get the European governments to finance it? Especially given Europe's current state of affairs.
 
  • #56
in general, society wants it to be done for the second reason.
Not always, and the society does not make direct decisions about big science projects.

The LHC produces useful applications. Win-win situation for all.
 
  • #57
mfb said:
Not always, and the society does not make direct decisions about big science projects.

The LHC produces useful applications. Win-win situation for all.

Like the huge computer network required? I wonder how much funding it still receives as of now. Most European governments would have probably classified it as low priority due to the economic crisis.
 
Last edited:
  • #58
The huge computer network and various software developments, the high-tech particle detectors, data analysis methods, radiation hard components, ...
Funding is sufficient to run or improve the accelerator and the detectors, and the planned upgrades get enough money to proceed, too.
 
Back
Top