5 ms·

I love science (at least in the ideal form). That being said, if knowledge provides a real, tangible benefit to mankind, people should be willing to pay for it

I love science (at least in the ideal form). That being said, if knowledge provides a real, tangible benefit to mankind, people should be willing to pay for it. If it doesn't, people shouldn't be forced to pay for it. I agree that some valuable research would go undone if performed by companies because the time window to see a return on investment would be too long. Unfortunately, academia is a huge mess, and we really need a new approach to basic science.

Konnstann 8y ago
What's your definition of basic science? The requirement for Science to produce real, tangible benefits to mankind for it to get funded makes a lot of it unfeasible, because a good bit of it is useless on it's own, but is good to figure out because of potential uses in the future.
- bluGill 8y ago
  The real problem is we won't know if something is useful until after we get results. Gravity is a perfect example - physics has a lot of open questions on gravity. What if someone closed one of them? It could mean nothing, just a slightly better understanding of why things fall - or it could be a major change that allows us to create "anti-gravity paint" making a self-supporting colony on Jupiter simple (image all the "land" you could own there - whatever "owning land" on gas planet means)
  - AstralStorm 8y ago
    Come on, such a thing would allow for reasonable space travel even better than for just making colonies. It is essentially Mass Effect Element Zero - you could create gravity wells for things to "fall into", creating enormous accelerations of space ships while at the same time protecting the crew from the effects. Potentially even a kind of faster than light travel. As a side boon new kinds of materials can be created in extreme artificial gravity conditions some this maps to extreme and impossible to achieve otherwise pressures. Including just creating stars in a controlled environment making for immense energy availability. Instead of magnetic fusion containment you'd have gravitational fusion containment. This is how powerful practically breaking gravity can be.
    - bluGill 8y ago
      I just hand wave assumed a slightly different set of rules. With your set of rules (which is at least as likely as mine) you are correct. Since both of us are speculating we are both equally right. Of course it might be that better understanding of gravity proves that artificial gravity is impossible.
  - v_lisivka 8y ago
    Gravity is not a hard thing to understand. If energy is released when two objects are gravitating towards each other, then something must release it. It narrows number of possible options. My current best guess is that we are inside gigantic object (about hundred of order of magnitudes larger than our Visible Universe, made of particles about few dozens order of magnitude smaller than Planck scale) with conditions similar to conditions in neutron star. So gravitation is just Casimir effect at scale.
- CuriouslyC 8y ago
  The type of basic science I'm talking about here is stuff that is foundational for other science that can be applied. A good example would be esoteric math. Looking back, not all of it had immediate application when it was being worked on, but we wouldn't have things like transistors if people hadn't worked on it. There definitely needs to be a cost sharing scheme in place in science to encourage basic research that benefits everyone. I'm doubtful that the current model is optimal though, and I think we should explore other options.
kennyadam 8y ago
On one hand, I love that people can research things without worrying about generating a profit. However, when I read about someone who has been funded to spend years studying the sports history of central-asian mongols and I look how much I'm struggling, working in an underfunded public-sector school, I feel... well, jealous and hard-done-by.
- titanix2 8y ago
  Yeap, a lot of para-scientific departments and fields get founding under the umbrella of research and science but what they really do is either politics or almost completely useless studies. In countries where funding is a problem, it is a bit raging to see how much money got wasted this way. These studies have their place too, but their makers should at least have the decency not call what they do science.

Konnstann 8y ago

What's your definition of basic science? The requirement for Science to produce real, tangible benefits to mankind for it to get funded makes a lot of it unfeasible, because a good bit of it is useless on it's own, but is good to figure out because of potential uses in the future.

bluGill 8y ago
The real problem is we won't know if something is useful until after we get results. Gravity is a perfect example - physics has a lot of open questions on gravity. What if someone closed one of them? It could mean nothing, just a slightly better understanding of why things fall - or it could be a major change that allows us to create "anti-gravity paint" making a self-supporting colony on Jupiter simple (image all the "land" you could own there - whatever "owning land" on gas planet means)
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  Come on, such a thing would allow for reasonable space travel even better than for just making colonies. It is essentially Mass Effect Element Zero - you could create gravity wells for things to "fall into", creating enormous accelerations of space ships while at the same time protecting the crew from the effects. Potentially even a kind of faster than light travel. As a side boon new kinds of materials can be created in extreme artificial gravity conditions some this maps to extreme and impossible to achieve otherwise pressures. Including just creating stars in a controlled environment making for immense energy availability. Instead of magnetic fusion containment you'd have gravitational fusion containment. This is how powerful practically breaking gravity can be.
  - bluGill 8y ago
    I just hand wave assumed a slightly different set of rules. With your set of rules (which is at least as likely as mine) you are correct. Since both of us are speculating we are both equally right. Of course it might be that better understanding of gravity proves that artificial gravity is impossible.
- v_lisivka 8y ago
  Gravity is not a hard thing to understand. If energy is released when two objects are gravitating towards each other, then something must release it. It narrows number of possible options. My current best guess is that we are inside gigantic object (about hundred of order of magnitudes larger than our Visible Universe, made of particles about few dozens order of magnitude smaller than Planck scale) with conditions similar to conditions in neutron star. So gravitation is just Casimir effect at scale.
CuriouslyC 8y ago
The type of basic science I'm talking about here is stuff that is foundational for other science that can be applied. A good example would be esoteric math. Looking back, not all of it had immediate application when it was being worked on, but we wouldn't have things like transistors if people hadn't worked on it. There definitely needs to be a cost sharing scheme in place in science to encourage basic research that benefits everyone. I'm doubtful that the current model is optimal though, and I think we should explore other options.

kennyadam 8y ago

On one hand, I love that people can research things without worrying about generating a profit. However, when I read about someone who has been funded to spend years studying the sports history of central-asian mongols and I look how much I'm struggling, working in an underfunded public-sector school, I feel... well, jealous and hard-done-by.

titanix2 8y ago
Yeap, a lot of para-scientific departments and fields get founding under the umbrella of research and science but what they really do is either politics or almost completely useless studies. In countries where funding is a problem, it is a bit raging to see how much money got wasted this way. These studies have their place too, but their makers should at least have the decency not call what they do science.