Is Science Selfish? Exploring the Human Response to Theoretical Science

In summary: Overall knowledge? In summary, most people view anything related to the arts and sciences as being impractical, and not worth the time and money.
  • #1
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
4,446
558
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
  • #2
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?
 
  • #3
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.
 
  • #4
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.
 
  • #5
Thrice, your opinion should matter along with every human beings on this planet.
 
  • #6
Not according to http://origin.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/study_38_percent_of_people article, no :-p
 
  • #7
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.
 
  • #8
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".
 
  • #9
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.
 

FAQ: Is Science Selfish? Exploring the Human Response to Theoretical Science

What is the importance of studying human response to science?

Studying human response to science is crucial because it helps us understand how people perceive and interact with scientific information, and how this influences their beliefs, behaviors, and decision-making. This knowledge can then be used to improve science communication, promote public engagement with science, and address any potential ethical concerns.

How do people typically respond to new scientific discoveries?

People's responses to new scientific discoveries can vary greatly depending on their prior beliefs, values, and cultural background. Some may embrace the new information and adjust their beliefs accordingly, while others may reject it or experience cognitive dissonance. It is important to consider the diverse responses and potential consequences when communicating scientific discoveries.

Can human response to science influence the progress of scientific research?

Yes, human response to science can greatly impact the progress of scientific research. Public perceptions and attitudes towards certain fields of science or specific research topics can influence funding, policy decisions, and public support for scientific endeavors. Additionally, ethical concerns and public backlash can also hinder or delay certain research projects.

How can scientists effectively communicate their research to the public?

Effective science communication involves understanding the target audience and tailoring the message accordingly. Scientists can use clear and concise language, visuals, and relatable examples to make their research more accessible and engaging to the public. Seeking feedback and considering different perspectives can also help improve communication and address any potential misunderstandings or concerns.

How can we address conflicts between scientific evidence and personal beliefs?

Conflicts between scientific evidence and personal beliefs can be challenging to navigate. It is important to approach these conversations with empathy and understanding, and to acknowledge that personal beliefs are deeply ingrained and may not easily change. Scientists can also provide clear and accurate information, and address any misconceptions or misinformation in a respectful manner. Encouraging critical thinking and open-mindedness can also help bridge the gap between evidence and beliefs.

Back
Top