4 ms·
I re-read the thread and you're right, you were a bit unfairly "attacked" for asking a reasonable question. I focused on what you said without taking contex
by fifnir 8y ago
I re-read the thread and you're right, you were a bit unfairly "attacked" for asking a reasonable question.
I focused on what you said without taking context into proper consideration, sorry for that.
I was not responding to your original question, but more so to ... something in my head I guess.
Of course, absolutely, explaining what we do is hugely important. Actually I think
that bringing new knowledge to the rest of humanity is the second most important
thing after actually generating said knowledge.
> can't be expected to appreciate your work if you can't explain it.
The frustration is that people only seem capable of appreciating science when it has
direct and tangible benefits for humans. (and that's why i posted the previous post, not cause you dared ask a reasonable question)
"Why do you do this?"
"What can we use this for in humans?"
- jamesrcole 8y agoIn addition to what you've said about the frustration, there's the following. Basic research is vitally important, and has contributed so much to society. Yet by its very nature you can't predict if how any specific piece of basic research will provide benefit. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of basic research and scientific and technological development to expect to be able to know, and thus say, what the benefits might be. Rather than expecting to be able to predict the benefits, we have to have a more 'statistical' set of expectations. That, on aggregate, and over time, basic research will provide substantial benefits. And it's not just the general public who don't appreciate this. I find that many people working in applied research don't appreciate it either.
- nickelcitymario 8y agoCompletely agree :-) (And no apology needed... I shouldn't take things so personally.)