4 ms·

I would argue that most scientists in general pursue their field of study in the pursuit of sexy knowledge itself. If there's no wonder to motivate, what are pe

I would argue that most scientists in general pursue their field of study in the pursuit of sexy knowledge itself. If there's no wonder to motivate, what are people working towards? I also would like to argue that it doesn't have to "garner attention rapidly on a large scale" to be recognized by the masses, but rather just spark their imaginations in general.

posterboy 8y ago
Mass and speed are proportional (are they? For sake of tve argument, mass begets gravity begets accelleration). But the masses don't want massive bulks of data. They want quick information. Like, your new phone can show 4k vids whatever, and some even care that that's due to advances in nano materials and quantum optics, but to most, the physical side is uninteresting and something inherently theoretical like black holes, LIGO or LHC is only really mass compatible if broken down to show the kind of action, i.e. research, that is happens on this very planet - time travel, ripples in the fabric of space, or theosophy (god particle), respectively. The whole quantum mechanics philosophy crossover is a huge messy confusion as a result of this (many worlds shroedingers cat) - and that even affects even many physicists.
wolfgke 8y ago
> I would argue that most scientists in general pursue their field of study in the pursuit of sexy knowledge itself. If there's no wonder to motivate, what are people working towards? I disagree. My opinion on whether you might get the impression is that you need to argue with "sexy knowledge" in research proposals.
ellius 8y ago
For the record I'm not saying that sexy knowledge is bad. I'm saying that it has the potential to devalue homely knowledge and crowd it out of mindshare. That isn't to say that fascinating and flashy theories aren't valuable, just that they may have an adverse effect because we overvalue it.

posterboy 8y ago

Mass and speed are proportional (are they? For sake of tve argument, mass begets gravity begets accelleration). But the masses don't want massive bulks of data. They want quick information. Like, your new phone can show 4k vids whatever, and some even care that that's due to advances in nano materials and quantum optics, but to most, the physical side is uninteresting and something inherently theoretical like black holes, LIGO or LHC is only really mass compatible if broken down to show the kind of action, i.e. research, that is happens on this very planet - time travel, ripples in the fabric of space, or theosophy (god particle), respectively. The whole quantum mechanics philosophy crossover is a huge messy confusion as a result of this (many worlds shroedingers cat) - and that even affects even many physicists.

wolfgke 8y ago

> I would argue that most scientists in general pursue their field of study in the pursuit of sexy knowledge itself. If there's no wonder to motivate, what are people working towards? I disagree. My opinion on whether you might get the impression is that you need to argue with "sexy knowledge" in research proposals.

ellius 8y ago

For the record I'm not saying that sexy knowledge is bad. I'm saying that it has the potential to devalue homely knowledge and crowd it out of mindshare. That isn't to say that fascinating and flashy theories aren't valuable, just that they may have an adverse effect because we overvalue it.