3 ms·

The benefit of any scientific paper is that is benefits science -- it is not necessary that science accomplishes anything more. (The fact that science benefits

The benefit of any scientific paper is that is benefits science -- it is not necessary that science accomplishes anything more. (The fact that science benefits society is a nice consequence, but not necessarily an immediate one.) While I think there are in fact useful insights that the individual can glean directly from this paper, we shouldn't forget that scientific papers exist for a larger purpose than to be the tools of self-improvement or the weapons of our social wars.

learc83 9y ago
I get what you're saying, but this seems close to pushing science as a goal in itself rather than a means to an end. Pure research is often useful to society because we don't know what's going to prove useful beforehand. Knowledge can also be useful to a person because simply because it satisfies their curiosity. But in both cases it's the potential benefit to people that make it worth doing.
- javadocmd 9y ago
  I was being casual about my phrasing. Yes, we expect there to be benefit from the general execution of science as a practice at the macro scale. My point is simply that the same expectation cannot be applied to the micro scale of an individual research effort because, as you said, the benefits are unknowable in advance.
- nostrademons 9y ago
  Your viewpoint is cultural, FWIW. In many cultures (eg. most Confucian ones) and subcultures (eg. academia, wealthy ancient Greeks) knowledge of the truth was considered an inherent value that's greater than its application to messy human interests. Application of science debases the pure research - it's no longer as likely to be true, because now you have introduced human incentives and emotions as a consideration. Growing up in a bicultural Asian/white household, reconciling these two viewpoints was one of my greatest sources of childhood angst. My Asian academic dad was all about learning for its own sake, and he'd look down upon the politicians and businessmen who sought to use science to further their own ends. My white teacher mom was very much "What's the point of information if you don't use it to do some good in the world?" This is a gross generalization, but I've seen strong echoes of this in the working world as well, eg. the stereotypical Chinese Ph.D working in a lab or at a computer whose results are then going to get commercialized by a Harvard MBA. The reconciliation I eventually came up with is basically "You get what you ask for." On a factual level, cultures that value truth for its own sake tend to have a more accurate understanding of the truth, but then they get steamrolled by cultures that value truth for what it can do for them, but only if that other culture is on the same basic technology level. Then you get a very interesting dynamic where the usage of science for military purposes (often viewed as a "deal with the devil" by those in academia) ends up "carving out" safe spaces for scientists and academics where pure research is protected and supported by politicians for its usefulness.
  - learc83 9y ago
    You're misunderstanding my post. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I think that satisfying your own curiosity/the desire for knowledge is a valid reason to pursue knowledge. I don't think knowledge needs to be directly useful to be worth pursuing. But, all cultures amd people pursue knowledge they believe to be valuable in some way. No culture encourages it's people to record the number of specs of dust on their floor before they sweep just because they value truth.

learc83 9y ago

I get what you're saying, but this seems close to pushing science as a goal in itself rather than a means to an end. Pure research is often useful to society because we don't know what's going to prove useful beforehand. Knowledge can also be useful to a person because simply because it satisfies their curiosity. But in both cases it's the potential benefit to people that make it worth doing.

javadocmd 9y ago
I was being casual about my phrasing. Yes, we expect there to be benefit from the general execution of science as a practice at the macro scale. My point is simply that the same expectation cannot be applied to the micro scale of an individual research effort because, as you said, the benefits are unknowable in advance.
nostrademons 9y ago
Your viewpoint is cultural, FWIW. In many cultures (eg. most Confucian ones) and subcultures (eg. academia, wealthy ancient Greeks) knowledge of the truth was considered an inherent value that's greater than its application to messy human interests. Application of science debases the pure research - it's no longer as likely to be true, because now you have introduced human incentives and emotions as a consideration. Growing up in a bicultural Asian/white household, reconciling these two viewpoints was one of my greatest sources of childhood angst. My Asian academic dad was all about learning for its own sake, and he'd look down upon the politicians and businessmen who sought to use science to further their own ends. My white teacher mom was very much "What's the point of information if you don't use it to do some good in the world?" This is a gross generalization, but I've seen strong echoes of this in the working world as well, eg. the stereotypical Chinese Ph.D working in a lab or at a computer whose results are then going to get commercialized by a Harvard MBA. The reconciliation I eventually came up with is basically "You get what you ask for." On a factual level, cultures that value truth for its own sake tend to have a more accurate understanding of the truth, but then they get steamrolled by cultures that value truth for what it can do for them, but only if that other culture is on the same basic technology level. Then you get a very interesting dynamic where the usage of science for military purposes (often viewed as a "deal with the devil" by those in academia) ends up "carving out" safe spaces for scientists and academics where pure research is protected and supported by politicians for its usefulness.
- learc83 9y ago
  You're misunderstanding my post. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I think that satisfying your own curiosity/the desire for knowledge is a valid reason to pursue knowledge. I don't think knowledge needs to be directly useful to be worth pursuing. But, all cultures amd people pursue knowledge they believe to be valuable in some way. No culture encourages it's people to record the number of specs of dust on their floor before they sweep just because they value truth.