4 ms·

That's a rather narrow view. Can you imagine what went into building the gravitational wave observatories? Don't you think that's advanced the state of the ar

That's a rather narrow view. Can you imagine what went into building the gravitational wave observatories? Don't you think that's advanced the state of the art with respect to the different kinds of technology, manufacturing, and construction techniques involved? I support biomedical research. We're adopting scientific collaboration tools developed by the high energy physics community and specifically LIGO. These tools make it possible for large-scale, multi-institution, transnational collaborations to readily and securely share data worldwide. I'm really excited about what has become possible. Admittedly, that has nothing to do with the detection of gravitational waves themselves. Still, these projects (and others) have improved the state of the art, and while it might not lead to something you can buy at Walmart any time soon, it might make a malaria cure happen sooner, or improve the quality of care for tuberculosis patients, or reduce the rate of breast cancer---little stuff that over time adds up to hundreds of thousands of people alive and well who, without all those little things adding up, wouldn't be alive today.

dekhn 9y ago
any ancillary benefits that occur as side effects of funding a physics project, could almost certainly have been achieved, without the funding of the physics project. for example, direct investment into disease research is much more likely to have short-term impact. that's not to say ancillary discoveries with impact outside the original domain don't occur- they're just not as cost effective.
- pcnix 9y ago
  But then that means you wouldn't have funded the physics project. In the long term, research in fundamental physics is the main thrust for human scientific progress, which is why it is given the importance it is. Ancillary benefits are, by definition, not the primary thrust of what research is about. Apologies if I misunderstood your comment.
  - dekhn 9y ago
    Most of the big expensive physics projects actually have little to no impact on daily life, or really scientific progress they're mainly about confirming theories that were thought up a long time ago. Dollar-for-dollar medical research has a much greater impact than physics
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

dekhn 9y ago

any ancillary benefits that occur as side effects of funding a physics project, could almost certainly have been achieved, without the funding of the physics project. for example, direct investment into disease research is much more likely to have short-term impact. that's not to say ancillary discoveries with impact outside the original domain don't occur- they're just not as cost effective.

pcnix 9y ago
But then that means you wouldn't have funded the physics project. In the long term, research in fundamental physics is the main thrust for human scientific progress, which is why it is given the importance it is. Ancillary benefits are, by definition, not the primary thrust of what research is about. Apologies if I misunderstood your comment.
- dekhn 9y ago
  Most of the big expensive physics projects actually have little to no impact on daily life, or really scientific progress they're mainly about confirming theories that were thought up a long time ago. Dollar-for-dollar medical research has a much greater impact than physics

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]