Why do people prefer engineering/applied science over pure science?

[metalrose]

Hi,

I am a physics undergraduate student, and was wondering why so many people would prefer to become an Electrical Engineer or Mechanical Engineer as opposed to a Theoretical Physicist or a Mathematician or a Biologist?

What attracts you to the applied science fields so much (APART FROM THE MONEY). Do you not find it exciting to ask fundamental questions like "Where did the universe come from?" or "How does it all work?" or "Why does it all exist?" or "What new knowledge mathematics can produce?" or "How and why life evolved?" ?

I know, working as an electronics engineer for example, can be exciting too, making new kinds of circuits that could possibly change current technologies and take our societies forward.
But isn't that more close to "helping societies progress", or in other words "social service"?

One can get great pleasure from serving the society at large and making a difference in world at a practical level. And so, the excitement that you may get from being an engineer or an applied scientist, isn't it basically the excitement that you get from serving the society at large?

Because, according to my personal view, as far as the excitement of new knowledge is considered, the pure and fundamental sciences do a better job of giving that.

For example, as an electrical engineer, you may create a great deal of circuits having varied applications, some or most of which would be responsible for bettering our lives. But in the end, whatever you may create or do, rests on the four equations of maxwell, and a bit of math.

So in the process, you have produced applications, different ways of doing a thing, bettered the human life, but have essentially produced no new fundamental knowledge.

Working on applications is important, else the world wouldn't be the way it is today, but as far as excitement and fulfillment is considered, I guess pure sciences do a better job at that.

These were my opinions. I'd like to hear from all you students of engineering/applied science and applied scientists out there.

 

[Rebound]

I think it's mostly a case of preferring to be hands-on. I've known quite a few people who just don't derive satisfaction from working with problems on a purely theoretical level.

 

[Fragment]

I think it also has something to do with employability. Graduates from pure degrees tend to find it harder to find field-relevent jobs, as compared to graduates from applied degrees.

 

[russ_watters]

I also have an issue with spending a lifetime on a project with no guarantee it will go anywhere.

 

[TMFKAN64]

Some people like to build stuff, while some people like to know stuff.

 

[Phyisab****]

What attracts you to the applied science fields so much (APART FROM THE MONEY). Do you not find it exciting to ask fundamental questions like "Where did the universe come from?" or "How does it all work?" or "Why does it all exist?" or "What new knowledge mathematics can produce?" or "How and why life evolved?" ?

Science will not answer these questions in the foreseeable future in a way which will satisfy me. It's just much more satisfying for me to work on things which have a direct impact on the real world.

Also, the money.

 

[Klockan3]

http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2010/02/22/Why%20You%20Want%20to%20Be%20An%20Engineer.gif

 

[Ben Espen]

There are many different answers to this at different levels. Money is not irrelevant to the career choices people make, afterall prices can be seen as a probabilistic manner of communicating information about value and scarcity. Also my job satisfaction is partially measured in USD.

In terms of what people like to do, it is not fun to do something that you are not good at. The level of intellectual ability and personal dedication required to become a successful theoretical physicist is probably 2 standard deviations above that required to become an electrical engineer. This means that many fewer people have the ability to be theoretical physicists than EEs. It should not be surprising that people don't want to do things they can't do well.

Do you not find it exciting to ask fundamental questions like "Where did the universe come from?" or "How does it all work?" or "Why does it all exist?" or "What new knowledge mathematics can produce?" or "How and why life evolved?" ?

As for fundamental knowledge, I'm not sure that science is really so good at that. They kinds of questions you posed are properly metaphysical questions rather than scientific ones. Like the computer in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the only answer science can give you to those questions is '42', because science is quantitative. Science depends upon philosophical assumptions that usually go unsaid, for the reason that they are so settled that everyone unconsciously relies on them. If they were spelled out you would just say, "Duh!".

What the pure sciences do differently than the applied sciences is give more abstract answers, that apply over a broader range.

For example, as an electrical engineer, you may create a great deal of circuits having varied applications, some or most of which would be responsible for bettering our lives. But in the end, whatever you may create or do, rests on the four equations of maxwell, and a bit of math.

Thus, it is true that those of us who are engineers rely upon pure science in our work, but it is not really true that everything we do is nothing but plugging the right numbers into already known equations. The known physical laws underdetermine the behavior of actually existing things. To make a math analogy, there are more unknowns than equations. The difference between engineering and math is that instead of ending up with a family of solutions you end up with one, unique object that you have to experiment on to figure out how it actually works, as opposed to how you think it is going to work. If you did the science right, then you have an idea, but you don't know all the answers yet.

Put another way, when I design something, I am creating an object that has never before existed in the history of the universe. The behavior of that one thing is not necessarily going to change everything, but then again it may do something pretty cool that has never been done before. You could call this hands-on, but I prefer to think of it as bending matter to my will. Scientists generally attempt to let matter alone so you can see what it does when you aren't fiddling with it.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I think you might have an inaccurate view of fundamental research. I do fundamental physics research and the sort of questions I ask most often are less along the lines of "why is there more matter than antimatter" and more along the lines of "who stole my screwdriver"?

 

[Ben Espen]

I wouldn't dispute that Vanadium.

Also, Klockan3, that cartoon is awesome!

 

[Math Is Hard]

...and the sort of questions I ask most often are less along the lines of "why is there more matter than antimatter" and more along the lines of "who stole my screwdriver"?

I always saw you as more of a scotch and soda guy.

 

[DR13]

So in the process, you have produced applications, different ways of doing a thing, bettered the human life, but have essentially produced no new fundamental knowledge.

You can easily flip this on its head. For someone in pure science you may (if you are very good and very lucky) find out something that answers some fundamental question. However, you have done nothing to better human life. Let's say that you go on to prove m-theory to be true. That's all fine and dandy and you will be immortalized in the physics community, but that really doesn't help the average joe. Most of America would rather have someone engineer a way to have clean, affordable than have someone have a big breakthrough on SUSY.

In my personal opinion I see the value in both applied and pure sciences.

 

[metalrose]

Thank you all for the responses. I guess why people shun from doing pure science is 1.)huge amounts of dedication required, 2.)very small probability of success, 3.)and ofcourse the money.

@phyisab**** and Vanadium 50,

I'm still at an undegraduate level so I guess you guys know better. But I think the question of why or how the Earth revolves around the sun was as fundamental and the answer to which was as unforseeable in the times of Newton or galileo as the questions like "why the universe exists" are today.

So I really don't think that science doesn't have the capacity to answer those questions. It might take time and it might be hard work but I don't think such questions will go unanswered.

 

[fasterthanjoao]

Thank you all for the responses. I guess why people shun from doing pure science is 1.)huge amounts of dedication required, 2.)very small probability of success, 3.)and ofcourse the money.

To me, no, those aren't the reasons - and they aren't the reasons that people have given. Why do you think that there's somehow less dedication involved in working outside a 'pure' topic? And it isn't the probability of success that is off-putting - for a lot of people (myself involved) going into applied science is more of a way of doing something actually useful for the world. For many years my interests were set in pure-research, and I love the stuff but I just felt that something else was missing. Being able to work on a project that could actually make a difference to peoples lives was a big pull for me.

You should probably quickly get rid of the 'tier' mentality that is common among undergraduates. So-called 'pure' subjects are not at the top - there isn't one, and it just ends up snooty if you're confused as to why anyone would study anything other than what you, yourself, are interested in . Each discipline is valid and has it's own attractions for each individual.

And I don't get paid any more than I would were I in a 'pure' subject.

questions like "why the universe exists" are today.

So I really don't think that science doesn't have the capacity to answer those questions. It might take time and it might be hard work but I don't think such questions will go unanswered.

You problem might also be the overlap with questions that can have a physical answer and questions that are purely philosophical.

 

[ZapperZ]

Hi,

I am a physics undergraduate student, and was wondering why so many people would prefer to become an Electrical Engineer or Mechanical Engineer as opposed to a Theoretical Physicist or a Mathematician or a Biologist?

This may be slightly off-topic, but I think there is an opportunity here for me to once again correct a severe misconception about "theoretical physics" and "applied physics". Here's the bottom line:

Theoretical physics and applied physics are NOT mutually exclusive!

You can do theoretical physics in applied physics! Condensed matter physics, atomic physics, accelerator physics, etc.. are areas that often considered to be applied physics. Phil Anderson, Bob Laughlin, etc.. are all theoretical physicists in condensed matter, and they won the Nobel Prize as well! The physicist that I consider to be the most influential physicist of our time, John Bardeen, was a theorist, and the only person ever to have won the Nobel Prize in Physics twice! His first Nobel Prize also gave the clearest example of a theorist at work on an applied field - doing the necessary theoretical calculation on a solid-state transistor to aide its design Shockley and Brattain.

So the first myth that needs to be destroyed here is that one cannot do theoretical physics in an applied area. This misconception needs to be buried for good.

Secondly, the myth that doing "applied physics" doesn't address anything fundamental about the universe. This is severely shortsighted.

One only needs to look at the hunt for the Higgs at the Tevatron and LHC. Everyone agrees that the Higgs physics is very fundamental, and part of what we call basic physics that addresses the Standard Model of elementary particles. Yet, look at where the Higgs mechanism came from! Would you believe that it was inspired by the same physics that was used to study superconductors? Phil Anderson's broken symmetry principle was a huge part of the development of the Higgs mechanism. Peter Higgs himself clearly stated this (see a http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/19750" ).

"When I moved back to Edinburgh in October 1960 I was not sure where I was going next," he recalls. That all changed the following year when he read a paper by Yoichiro Nambu that based a theory of elementary particles on an analogy with the BCS theory of superconductivity. "This is where the idea of a spontaneously broken symmetry being the way in which the mass of particles could be generated first arose," says Higgs. "Although my name gets thrown around in this context, it was Nambu who showed how fermion masses would be generated in a way that was analogous to the formation of the energy gap in a superconductor."

There was, however, a problem with the Nambu approach. Although the spontaneous breaking of symmetry generated particles with mass, Jeffrey Goldstone, Salam and Steven Weinberg had shown that it also generated a particle known as a Goldstone boson that had no mass. This was bad news because no such particle was known to exist.

Once more help arrived from the condensed-matter community when, in 1963, Phil Anderson pointed out that the equivalent of a Goldstone boson in a superconductor could become massive due to its electromagnetic interactions. But did Anderson's argument apply in the relativistic case? No, said a paper by Walter Gilbert in an issue of Physical Review Letters that arrived in Edinburgh the middle of July. Yes, said Higgs, after thinking about it over the weekend.

In other words, you don't need to be in particle physics, string theory, etc.. etc. to study fundamental physics. If you have fallen asleep and missed all the brouhaha surrounding the recent discovery of the topological insulator, WAKE UP. This family of material has been viewed not only in the applied sense, but also in the fundamental sense, since many of basic, elementary particle physics physics might be exhibited in this family of material!

So the second and final myth that needs to be destroyed here is that one cannot study anything fundamental or basic when doing applied physics. There are numerous examples to show that this is utterly false!

Thus, this render the topic moot. You CAN do applied physics, and you CAN do theoretical applied physics, and you CAN do basic, fundamental research studying the deepest questions about the universe doing theoretical applied physics. And you can have your cake and eat it too!

Zz.

 

[metalrose]

@fasterthanjoao,

I do understand that each field has its own attractions for different individuals. And that's what I wanted to know through this question, as to what are those things that would pull somebody into the engineering/applied fields.
I already mentioned 3 reasons in my previous post.

I guess I missed an important one out there, as you pointed out.
The pleasure of serving the society and producing something tangible.
So I guess there are people out there, yourself included, who don't get the satisfaction unless they do "hands-on" or see their work affecting people at large, for good of course.

And that's great I guess. But I would say that is closer to social service than producing fundamental knowledge. Not to say that serving the society is any less important than producing fundamental knowledge.

But I get disappointed when I see people failing to appreciate the beauty of the universe. Humans are the only creation of nature, as far as we know, who can understand themselves and the world around them. It's sad to see people turning away such a marvellous opportunity nature has given us. And as einstein once said,

"The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed."
--"The World As I See It," originally published in FORUM AND CENTURY, 1931.

--------------------------------------

@ZapperZ

Applied fields helping produce new knowledge in the pure fields may not be that rare, but that is not what the applied fields actually concern themselves with. In many cases, it might turn out that applied fields lead to new knowledge, but that is more of a coincidence or being lucky enough.

To produce new knowledge is not the main concern of the applied fields, that's why they are called "applied". So I don't think, on the basis of just a few instances in the past where applied fields have helped the pure ones, one can say that applied fields do definitely produce fundamental knowledge.

correct me if I have misunderstood anything.

Thanks...

 

[603nothing]

Well first off, I think that in order to answer some theoretical questions about applied science technology has to be made, so that's where I "apply" myself as an EE.

Mostly, though, you can get the best of both worlds. As an EE I'm right now trying to understand the theory behind the memristor, arguably the fourth basic fundamental component of circuitry but at this point it's all theory of proving its existence, which is seen but rather unexplainable. I'm actually not quite sure, remember, I'm digging deeper?

 

[ZapperZ]

@ZapperZ

Applied fields helping produce new knowledge in the pure fields may not be that rare, but that is not what the applied fields actually concern themselves with. In many cases, it might turn out that applied fields lead to new knowledge, but that is more of a coincidence or being lucky enough.

To produce new knowledge is not the main concern of the applied fields, that's why they are called "applied". So I don't think, on the basis of just a few instances in the past where applied fields have helped the pure ones, one can say that applied fields do definitely produce fundamental knowledge.

correct me if I have misunderstood anything.

Thanks...

It is a misunderstanding. While that may be true way back when, it is no longer true now. Certainly, many people, even outside of the so-called applied fields, have accepted that fact that these fields DO produce fundamental knowledge. See http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.1741" .

The idea that fields such as condensed matter are only applied is outdated. This is what I'm trying to convey. Most theorists who go into this field will realize this extremely fast as they face the courses they take at the graduate level AND realize that many of them are in string, elementary particles/high energy, etc. And as they begin their research work, they'll realize it even more.

Zz.

 

[DR13]

Applied fields helping produce new knowledge in the pure fields may not be that rare, but that is not what the applied fields actually concern themselves with. In many cases, it might turn out that applied fields lead to new knowledge, but that is more of a coincidence or being lucky enough.

To produce new knowledge is not the main concern of the applied fields, that's why they are called "applied". So I don't think, on the basis of just a few instances in the past where applied fields have helped the pure ones, one can say that applied fields do definitely produce fundamental knowledge.

Applied fields produce new knowledge all of the time. Transistors, computers, nuclear reactors, etc are all products of applied science. I believe that one would consider this new knowledge. And if you want to talk about knowledge by accident look no farther than Bohr. When he first came up with his model for the atom, he said that he believed that it would never have an applied purpose. It is now the basis of nuclear science. So in pure sciences people come up with things that have no use and then it is up to the applied scientists to actually find a use for it.

 

[metalrose]

@DR13,

Sorry for the use of bad language, but when I say new knowledge, I mean new "FUNDAMENTAL KNOWLEDGE". A transistor runs on principles of physics and the invention of a transistor hasn't produced a new understanding of how nature works.

So yes, all the applied fields do produce knowledge, just like most other fields, but that's not fundamental in nature, that's all I am tryin to say here.

 

[metalrose]

@zapper z,

Maybe the particular field of condensed matter physics has a large overlap with the pure part of physics, and thus maybe it has been incorrectly viewed as a purely applied field.

But what I'm trying to say, is that the purely applied fields, not just in physics, but outside of it too, have got little to do with advancing our fundamental knowledge about nature.

Maybe you could consider condensed matter physics as a pure field having quite a no. of applications as well, so that in sense the argument may not apply to condensed matter phy. in particular, but I was talking about applied science in general.

Do you agree, or have I still not understood something?

Thanks.

 

[DR13]

OK, I am going to try to make this simple. People like to go into applied sciences to help the world around them (at least this is my reason). I just don't get why you are not accepting this as a legitimate reason. If all science people wanted to go into pure science we would be screwed and still living in the stone age. Plus, who do you think makes all of the fancy equipment that pure scientists use? The applied scientists. Hopefully you are content with this answer.

 

[Japelleum]

I am a physics undergraduate student, and was wondering why so many people would prefer to become an Electrical Engineer or Mechanical Engineer as opposed to a Theoretical Physicist or a Mathematician or a Biologist?

For me, it was all about the better job prospects. When I was studying 2nd year undergraduate physics, I could find no jobs related to my field of study. This really put me off, and I lost all motivation to work hard in my studies (and I had been an A student); in those days, my favorite thing to say was how hard physics was and how it was "all for nothing, all for sh**". It's just one of those hard facts of life that you are 100 times more likely to find employment with a B.Sc. in an applied field like EE than say a pure field like physics (at least that's how it works here in Canada). There is, of course, always graduate school, but my rationale was that I'd spent the last 12+ years in school and wanted to get out of it and not just get another degree that you "can do anything with" (not unlike a HS diploma).

Do you not find it exciting to ask fundamental questions like "Where did the universe come from?" or "How does it all work?" or "Why does it all exist?" or "What new knowledge mathematics can produce?" or "How and why life evolved?" ?

Yes, in fact I love thinking about such questions, but I'd much rather do it from the comfort of my relatively secure middle class life than that of a post doc struggling for tenure, or researcher worried about government cuts, and c. I can pick up a book anytime to find out more about such questions, but to convince someone that I am employable requires a practical degree I'm afraid.

 

[Dale]

What attracts you to the applied science fields so much (APART FROM THE MONEY). Do you not find it exciting to ask fundamental questions like "Where did the universe come from?" or "How does it all work?" or "Why does it all exist?" or "What new knowledge mathematics can produce?" or "How and why life evolved?"

For me it is because I enjoy the creative process more than the analytical process. I actually don't find the "how does it all work?" questions nearly as enjoyable as, "how can I build a device that will do X?"

If I hadn't gone into engineering I probably would have become an artist before a pure scientist.

 

[Klockan3]

Why do people prefer engineering/applied science over pure science?

Why do people prefer sex over porn? Basically the same reason, most prefers things which is closer to their reality. Porn is far away, you lack emotions for it except for its comparable purity while sex is hands on, dirty and filled with emotions.

I think that you need to be somewhat emotionally detached from reality to like the pure sciences.

 

[ZapperZ]

@zapper z,

Maybe the particular field of condensed matter physics has a large overlap with the pure part of physics, and thus maybe it has been incorrectly viewed as a purely applied field.

But what I'm trying to say, is that the purely applied fields, not just in physics, but outside of it too, have got little to do with advancing our fundamental knowledge about nature.

Maybe you could consider condensed matter physics as a pure field having quite a no. of applications as well, so that in sense the argument may not apply to condensed matter phy. in particular, but I was talking about applied science in general.

Do you agree, or have I still not understood something?

Thanks.

No, I disagree.

You really should do a bit of reading on what "condensed matter physics" is. It has a lot of applications, and it studies basic behavior of interactions present in matter.

Rather than trying to rename a cow as an elephant, why not simply accept the fact that the cow has plenty of elements of an elephant, and go on with the rest of our lives? This "need" to really compartmentalize various specialities, and THEN trying to deny various aspects of each of them, is awfully silly.

The OP made statements based on two outstanding myths about physics. What is so uncomfortable about destroying those myths?

Zz.

 

[metalrose]

A variety of opinions here...thank you all...

 

[physicsdude30]

Hi,

I am a physics undergraduate student, and was wondering why so many people would prefer to become an Electrical Engineer or Mechanical Engineer as opposed to a Theoretical Physicist or a Mathematician or a Biologist?

Perhaps engineers see the "Big Picture" vs "Details" differently? To illustrate where I'm coming from, most would say Isaac Newton was a big picture thinker. He saw an apple fall from a tree and though "gravity". He saw past the "here and now details" of apple and other activities of his time, and saw a bigger more universal picture. Now let's say you're the owner of a big business. The big picture is your business. The mitochondrial and chemical reactions in your workers arms/legs are details. Mitochondrial and chemical reactions are more universal and have a bigger impact on society, but they're details in this context. The same for the principles of economics. Likewise, most owners of a business are going to say the same of all the laws of physics/science. Physics may be more universal and a bigger impact on society as a whole, but so does mitochondrial/economics/stock marker/interior design/colors. As far as seeing the "forest from the trees", the big picture is the business. If you go outside and walk on the sidewalk, from your perspective the principles that went into making the concrete for the sidewalks below you is a detail. However, the person who studies that for a living sees you as a here and now detail and the principles that he's working on as more universal and having a bigger picture on society. If you see your friend, your friend is the big picture, while the biology behind pigmentation in his hair is a detail, while those who study that see your friend as the here and now detail.

It seems like a lot of engineers think the same about physics and the economics of their project, the different aspects may be more universal but they're still details, even if useful details.

To further illustrate this concept, think about the last time you went to the grocery store. If a nerd to one side of you keeps on talking about economics, you'll see him as a details rather than a big picture thinker. The same would be true about the nerd talking about mitochondrial. Seeing the forest from the trees, you have to think about the grocery store to be a big picture thinker. However, from the perspective of these two nerds they see you going to the grocery store as a here and now detail and themselves as analyzing something which is much more universal and bigger impact on society. With this knowledge, most out there still wouldn't be interested in studying economics, interior design, or colors for a living, even if all these are much more universal and have a greater impact on society as a whole than perhaps owning a large business, your family/friends, etc. I'm interested in Science and not engineering, but I figure this is how it's seen from the other side.

What are your thoughts?

 

[physicsdude30]

For me it is because I enjoy the creative process more than the analytical process. I actually don't find the "how does it all work?" questions nearly as enjoyable as, "how can I build a device that will do X?"

If I hadn't gone into engineering I probably would have become an artist before a pure scientist.

Analytical instead of creative? Something to consider, many think of creativity as art or making cool inventions. However, there's another type of creativity, scientific creativity where you come up with new discoveries. To illustrate how originality works, a woman makes a wedding cake out of baby diapers. All these other women say, "Cute! Hey, that's really original!" Whoever originally came up with that idea used two ideas which already existed, baby diapers and wedding cakes, and put them together in a way that's unique. Now let's say you're not familiar with either diapers or wedding cakes, how would you know if it's original? Also, when people say "Yea, yea, details" that means they're not interested. Just because someone may not be familiar with what's going on doesn't mean an idea wasn't original/profound when put into the proper context. You could say the same thing about how layman actually see what engineers do. Many just see their work as details in the background of their daily lives, although engineers who are familiar can quickly see what's original and what's not. A layman gets in her car to go to work, the way the engine works are seen as details in the background and the big picture her job. She uses a drinking fountain, details in background. Drives across a bridge? Same.

What are your thoughts?

 

[snshusat161]

Well, it's not at all interesting. I can see pure science students enjoying their lives after their classes and we (engineering students) are burdened with lot of assignment and thoughts. We don't have any time to enjoy. It may be interesting for people but it is a kind of challenge as well.

So, Money is the one of the very powerful reason.

What's the use of knowing nature if you don't know to make use of it. For instance, you know what moment is but still pushing the door by hinge. I know you don't do but this was just an example, when I'll go in higher semesters then I'll give you a proper example.

 

[metalrose]

What are your thoughts?

Well, I guess you are right to an extent as to how most of us would view what we do as the big picture and the rest as details.

But I think it's not so relative as you suggest. I guess there are some things that ARE really a bigger picture than the rest of the things. And I think Pure science, and more importantly, the physics-maths combination more so.

While a physicist might view his job as a bigger picture and the rest as details, but the fact is, that the physics-math combo is the EDGE OF KNOWLEDGE or rather the FRONTIER OF FUNDAMENTAL KNOWLEDGE.

You could think of the physics-math combo as the surface of a balloon expanding outward into the unknown. Every other body of knowledge, lies inside this balloon.

So physics-math is the only thing that is heading into the previously unknown.
By unknown here, I mean something "totally or fundamentally unknown".

Every other body of knowledge, though produces new knowledge, but that new knowledge still relies on an even fundamental knowledge that was already known.
And that's why no other body of knowledge produces completely new and and previously unknown knowledge.

That is why I call physics-math the FRONTIER OF KNOWLEDGE, THE SURFACE OF THE EXPANDING BALLOON OF KNOWLEDGE, and every other body of knowledge lying within this balloon.

what do you say?

 

[metalrose]

What's the use of knowing nature if you don't know to make use of it.

A similar question was posed to Michael Faraday once by somebody after he had discovered the laws of electro magnetic induction.

Someone asked Faraday, "The electromagnetic induction thing is all okay, but WHAT'S THE USE OF IT?"

And to this, Faraday replied, "You tell me, WHAT'S THE USE OF A NEW BORN BABY?"

I would like to ask you the same question as Faraday.

The use, if you really want to know, is the satisfaction of knowing rather than the uneasiness of not knowing. The use, is quenching the thirst of knowing.

Everything need not have a practical every-day use. Playing music or dancing or painting don't have any use as such (apart from personal fulfillment, similar to personal fulfillment gained from knowing nature).

 

[Ryker]

A similar question was posed to Michael Faraday once by somebody after he had discovered the laws of electro magnetic induction.

Someone asked Faraday, "The electromagnetic induction thing is all okay, but WHAT'S THE USE OF IT?"

And to this, Faraday replied, "You tell me, WHAT'S THE USE OF A NEW BORN BABY?"

Haha, every time I hear this anecdote, our fine Mr. Faraday has a different answer ready

 

[rhombusjr]

I think that you need to be somewhat emotionally detached from reality to like the pure sciences.

I disagree. Just go on YouTube and watch videos of Richard Feynman (The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, Fun to Imagine, etc.). In general, I don't know how you can study science being detached from reality; science is the study of what physically exists, what's real.

Personally on the subject of why people study applied vs. pure, it seems to me more of a case of apples to oranges. Why do some people devote their lives to building guitars and violins rather than playing them? Both musicians and luthiers create beautiful works of art, one is tangible and can be used as a tool, the other is intangible, but no less real or beautiful. The way I look at it, engineering and science are two different subjects, just like biology and chemistry are two different subjects. I don't think you can treat one as the retarded version of the other or one as the pointless esoteric version of the other. Why would someone study one over the other? It all boils down to personal preference. Which is "better"? Star Trek or Star Wars? Kung Fu or Karate? Rock or Jazz? Why are some people happy assembling car engines rather than studying the dynamics of combusting fluids? I think both engineers and scientists get their satisfaction from solving problems. The difference is the kinds of problems they like to solve and what they like to get out of their solutions.

 

[TMFKAN64]

Haha, every time I hear this anecdote, our fine Mr. Faraday has a different answer ready

I prefer the "Someday, you will be able to tax it" answer myself.