Most important piece of scientific knowledge

In summary, In Six Easy Pieces, Richard Feynman said if knowledge about the scientific method is free, I think atoms are a good choice. The study of those atoms will eventually lead to subatomic processes and quantum mechanics.
  • #36
"We've received a message: don't be evil!"

"Excellent! What shall we do because of it?"

"Isn't it obvious? We should do good and extinguish the evil of the blacks, the gays and the Jews."

Moral of the horrific story of history: morality is malleable.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Ryan_m_b said:
"We've received a message: don't be evil!"

"Excellent! What shall we do because of it?"

"Isn't it obvious? We should do good and extinguish the evil of the blacks, the gays and the Jews."

Moral of the horrific story of history: morality is malleable.

"Don't be Evil" was just stollen from Google's motto. I'm not eloquent enough to write the actual message consicely.

The message would include this omen about the dangers of mis-using scientific discoveries allong with the "morality is malleable" part you mentioned.
 
  • #38
I doubt hitting them with one specific scientific bit of knowledge will really help. I agree with Ryan, you need to get them to a good head start in developing civilization. Science and technology develop rapidly when the mundane things in life like food, water, shelter etc are taken care of and people have enough leisure time to pursue trivial matters (trivial in a pragmatic sense).

So depending on how far back the cataclysm sets mankind you'd provide them with the next big discovery to get them well on their way. Something like fire, the wheel, agriculture, the stuff's of the industrial revolution etc. These will aid much more into helping the human race to re-discover all the Scientific knowledge they lost. Who cares about an atom if you need to run after a gazelle for 5 hours just to get some meat on the table?
 
  • #39
Hmm... what about some (distant) target as incentive to study nature?
"With science, it is possible to go to the Moon".
 
  • #40
mfb said:
Hmm... what about some (distant) target as incentive to study nature?
"With science, it is possible to go to the Moon".

That's the sort of thing I was thinking of. I would add...

"With science, it is possible to go to the moon or to destroy the earth. The choice is yours. "
 
  • #41
flatmaster said:
That's the sort of thing I was thinking of. I would add...

"With science, it is possible to go to the moon or to destroy the earth. The choice is yours. "
As others have said this is too easy to fade into myth. I can't remember which religion has the saying "with faith it's possible to move mountains" but that statement is functionally indistinguishable to "with science it's possible to go to the moon". Ironically without showing how to get to the moon the latter statement is somewhat unscientific
 
  • #42
I would have one helluva run-on sentence.
 
  • #43
tade said:
Oh yes. But I'm sure people would want to know more. :smile:

More about physics that SR? Do the physicists really know more? less the complication that's gravity
 
Last edited:
  • #44
flatmaster said:
"Don't be Evil" was just stollen from Google's motto. I'm not eloquent enough to write the actual message consicely.

The message would include this omen about the dangers of mis-using scientific discoveries allong with the "morality is malleable" part you mentioned.
People will always find ways to misuse something. And Google seems to be getting more evil by the day :rolleyes:
 
  • #45
Ryan_m_b said:
mfb said:
Hmm... what about some (distant) target as incentive to study nature?
"With science, it is possible to go to the Moon".

As others have said this is too easy to fade into myth. I can't remember which religion has the saying "with faith it's possible to move mountains" but that statement is functionally indistinguishable to "with science it's possible to go to the moon". Ironically without showing how to get to the moon the latter statement is somewhat unscientific

It is unscientific, but other than being associated with religion, more imaginative people would think of it.

For instance, Kepler even wrote a sci-fi novel about sailing to the moon on a "skyship".
 
  • #46
nitsuj said:
More about physics that SR? Do the physicists really know more? less the complication that's gravity

Yes, more. All there is to know.
 
  • #47
Keep yourself and hands clean, observe sanitation in yourself, your food and water.
 
  • #48
Devils said:
Keep yourself and hands clean, observe sanitation in yourself, your food and water.

That's actually incredibly useful; I hadn't thought of it. Prior to germ theory, the lack of proper sanitation really hindered the livelihood of the human species.

Most of the other suggestions are surely helpful in terms of scientific knowledge, but as far as actually contributing to the survival of humanity, this one seems to be the best.

EDIT:

I guess an earlier post or two mentioned germ theory. Regardless, I still think it is very beneficial idea to pass on.
 
  • #49
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.
 
  • #50
I think what several people have tried to say, e.g. about experiment is better (as well as more completely and accurately) expressed

"The two divergent views" (I.e. the value of knowledge as an end in itself, as against as a means to useful applications) "... The history of the sciences was made not by the one or the other school of thought but from the interplay of both. ... theories and hypotheses are seldom based on a panoramic survey of the general scene. They rest more often on a detailed searching into matters which a casual view might well dismiss as specialised, recondite and obscure, and access to the realm of fruitful theories is usually by devious and unexpected ways, found out by men with very different ends in view." (Cyril Hinshelwood, "Structure of Physical Chemistry")

I'd add that although people sometimes research obscurities for their own sakes they more often than not had a reasonable idea of the importance of what they were into, a somewhat trained insight to realize that investigating specific heats or the length of pea plants In crosses could reveal something deeper behind the apparent obscurity. I mentioned the example of early electrostatics in #16. You encounter only a specialised often unobvious bit of the world in the laboratory.
 
Last edited:
  • #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)
 
  • #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. :tongue2:
 
  • #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.
 
<h2>What is the most important piece of scientific knowledge?</h2><p>The answer to this question is subjective and can vary depending on personal opinions and beliefs. Some may argue that the theory of evolution is the most important piece of scientific knowledge, while others may argue that the laws of thermodynamics or the theory of relativity hold more significance.</p><h2>How do scientists determine the most important piece of scientific knowledge?</h2><p>Scientists often use a combination of evidence, experimentation, and peer review to determine the validity and significance of a scientific theory or concept. They also consider the impact and relevance of the knowledge to society and the scientific community.</p><h2>Why is it important to have a "most important" piece of scientific knowledge?</h2><p>Having a commonly accepted "most important" piece of scientific knowledge helps to establish a foundation for scientific understanding and progress. It also allows for a shared understanding and language among scientists and helps to guide future research and advancements.</p><h2>Can the most important piece of scientific knowledge change over time?</h2><p>Yes, the most important piece of scientific knowledge can change as new evidence and discoveries are made. Scientific knowledge is constantly evolving and being refined, so what may have been considered the most important in the past may not hold the same significance in the present or future.</p><h2>Is there a consensus among scientists on the most important piece of scientific knowledge?</h2><p>While there may be a general consensus among scientists on certain scientific principles or theories, there is often ongoing debate and differing opinions on what is considered the most important piece of scientific knowledge. This is a natural part of the scientific process and allows for continued exploration and advancement in the field.</p>

What is the most important piece of scientific knowledge?

The answer to this question is subjective and can vary depending on personal opinions and beliefs. Some may argue that the theory of evolution is the most important piece of scientific knowledge, while others may argue that the laws of thermodynamics or the theory of relativity hold more significance.

How do scientists determine the most important piece of scientific knowledge?

Scientists often use a combination of evidence, experimentation, and peer review to determine the validity and significance of a scientific theory or concept. They also consider the impact and relevance of the knowledge to society and the scientific community.

Why is it important to have a "most important" piece of scientific knowledge?

Having a commonly accepted "most important" piece of scientific knowledge helps to establish a foundation for scientific understanding and progress. It also allows for a shared understanding and language among scientists and helps to guide future research and advancements.

Can the most important piece of scientific knowledge change over time?

Yes, the most important piece of scientific knowledge can change as new evidence and discoveries are made. Scientific knowledge is constantly evolving and being refined, so what may have been considered the most important in the past may not hold the same significance in the present or future.

Is there a consensus among scientists on the most important piece of scientific knowledge?

While there may be a general consensus among scientists on certain scientific principles or theories, there is often ongoing debate and differing opinions on what is considered the most important piece of scientific knowledge. This is a natural part of the scientific process and allows for continued exploration and advancement in the field.

Similar threads

Replies
49
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
605
Replies
45
Views
4K
Back
Top