11 ms·

> Almost any material hard metrics you look at like life expectancy, economic growth or whatever you could consider a sign of technological advancement, even te

by pxhb 7y ago

> Almost any material hard metrics you look at like life expectancy, economic growth or whatever you could consider a sign of technological advancement, even tens of billions in investment seem to produce only marginal improvements. We are not living in the golden age of science. As a knit pick, these metrics are all derivatives of science output, and not science itself. For example, detecting gravity waves does move the needle on any of these metrics, but it is still a great achievement for experimental physics.

OnlineGladiator 7y ago
I think his point is the science would be better served if it focused on solving problems for people, rather than exploring knowledge for the sake of it. But really I think that is the realm of engineering, and science is really just pursuing knowledge for the sake of it. It's impossible to know what will be useful - Richard Feynman thought it would be fun to analyze the flight characteristics of a flying plate. He later used the math he developed doing that to help him earn a Nobel prize. https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/kilcup.1/262/feynman.html https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/kilcup.1/262/feynman.html
- YayamiOmate 7y ago
  Reading your 1st sentence made me think "But that's engineering, it's application. Basic science is getting knowledge just for the sake of it." And you basically followed with it. Basic science is the foundation engineering builds on. I believe 1st semiconductors were a science experiment. Em waves were. Gigantomagnetoresistance was. The internet was an academic curiosity. It think it's important to blow some of human work on the free thinkers. It moves the popluation forward. Any other comparable scientific and engineering progress I can think was fueled by war. Imho allocating resources only for acute goals lead to local technological optima. Seemingly puporseless research helps to break out.
  - jean23 7y ago
    My favourite example is number theory, which was either hailed or ridiculed for millennia as being pure mathematics that can and will never be applied to real life problems. Today number theory is the basis for several important fields of application, including computation theory, modern cryptography, and numerical calculation.
    - roca 7y ago
      Yes, but the question is, did developing number theory hundreds of years in advance of its applications accelerate the development of, say, cryptography? Or would cryptographers have just worked out the number theory when they needed it? If it did accelerate the development of cryptography, how much acceleration did we get for that investment? Also in modern times, especially, there is a big problem of discoverability. If the mathematical result you need for some application is buried in a thirty-year-old journal using unfamiliar terminology, what are the chances you'll find it and understand it when you need it? I venture to suggest that much of the time it's easier to re-derive the result than to find it.
      - OnlineGladiator 7y ago
        That's a good point, but I think a strong counter-example would be anything we get from satellites. We went to space for political reasons, but let's just say it was for the sake of science because it sure didn't solve any immediate problems for mankind. But it did create the technology for satellites, which allow us to better predict the weather and gives us GPS tracking, and other things as well. But imagine you wanted to develop a global tracking system, would your first thought be to invent satellites if they did not already exist? So it definitely does matter sometimes, although which times is obviously open to interpretation.
        roca 7y ago
        I think that is a weak counter-example. The applications of rocketry and satellites were obvious by the end of WW2. In 1945 Arthur C. Clarke had already published an article explaining how useful it would be to have communication satellites in geostationary orbit, and it didn't take much imagination to suppose that a big enough rocket could put them there.
  - CharlesColeman 7y ago
    > I believe 1st semiconductors were a science experiment. I'm pretty sure the transistor [1] was invented specifically to solve a real engineering problem. [1] I'm taking your use of "semiconductor" to mean transistor because my understanding is semiconductors are a kind of material that was discovered, not invented.
kian 7y ago
Fantastic mondegreen ("knit pick", like picking at stitching with knitting needles, as opposed to "nit pick", which is picking off lice eggs to prevent future annoyance)
- adfkbuvasdas 7y ago
  The eye of my mind saw a pick made knitted out of wool, which was even funnier.
- Waterluvian 7y ago
  "Mondegreen" is a word I've needed but didn't know existed. Thanks for sharing. All intensive purposes. Get down to brass tax. There's a lot of these that I've uttered or heard and they last a long time because they sound kind of sensible.
  - alasdair_ 7y ago
    “Knowledge is power. France is bacon” is a personal favorite.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - GuiA 7y ago
    https://reddit.com/r/BoneAppleTea https://reddit.com/r/BoneAppleTea
aplanas 7y ago
> For example, detecting gravity waves does move the needle on any of these metrics It will surely do. Those achievements are not possible without staggering advances in technology that can be later applied in different fields. The same technology that we first developed for those expensive colliders is now used in MRI and others diagnosis tools that we have for granted today.
- 31b3r3t7 7y ago
  Don't forget the web: https://home.cern/science/computing/birth-web https://home.cern/science/computing/birth-web
- Anon84 7y ago
  > The same technology that we first developed for those expensive colliders is now used in MRI and others diagnosis tools that we have for granted today. The question is, how much better would "MRI and other diagnosis tools" if that money had been spent actively trying to improve them instead of mostly going to detecting gravity waves? That's the question you need to answer to justify spending billions chasing physicists latest "fetish". "Big physics" proponents always justify wasting (in my opinion) billions in colliders and observers by the unintended benefits that accidentally derive from them but they never mention how much more progress those other ares could make by directly using that money.Instead of spending $40B in the next big collider, what if we were spent developing CRISPR and related technologies? Or on a "moon-shot" for AGI? On developing new tools and techniques to study and understand large scale social systems? P.S.: I have a BS/MS/PhD in Theoretical Physics
  - roca 7y ago
    Exactly. Arguments for "spinoff benefits" from research always seem really weak to me. If you want lighter, imperishable food, invest in food preservation, not a space program that might happen to produce freeze-dried food.
    - theossuary 7y ago
      I'm not 100% convinced. I think it's hard to get really smart people to work on problems that aren't interesting. Asking a team to make food preservation 10% better won't invite the creativity and determination that asking them to preserve food to Mars would. I think, when you take humans into account, you're better off setting interesting and challenging goals, with many useful byproducts.
stan_rogers 7y ago
Speaking of nitpicking, it's nitpicking - literally speaking, removing the eggs of the lice you've probably already removed from someone's hair. It's a fussy activity (of necessity), takes forever, and would probably seem quite an annoying thing to someone (likely a child) who thinks you've already solved their pressing problem and should maybe leave them alone now.
- vo2maxer 7y ago
  Speaking of nitpicking or the more practical nit combing, none is needed if a 0.9% suspension of Spinosad (1) is applied to a child’s dry hair and washed off after 10 minutes. You may happily and confidently send your kids back to school after this one treatment despite the horrified looks of parents and teachers ;-) (1) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3273925/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3273925/
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    From link: The average cost of an application of permethrin 1% cream is about $20; an application of spinosad costs $270 without insurance. Ouch!
  - YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
    Or you can just let your kid have that fuschia mohawk she wants. The eggs will fall off the shaved part and the peroxide and glue will kill off the rest in the unshaved part.

by pxhb 7y ago

OnlineGladiator 7y ago

I think his point is the science would be better served if it focused on solving problems for people, rather than exploring knowledge for the sake of it. But really I think that is the realm of engineering, and science is really just pursuing knowledge for the sake of it. It's impossible to know what will be useful - Richard Feynman thought it would be fun to analyze the flight characteristics of a flying plate. He later used the math he developed doing that to help him earn a Nobel prize. https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/kilcup.1/262/feynman.html https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/kilcup.1/262/feynman.html

YayamiOmate 7y ago
Reading your 1st sentence made me think "But that's engineering, it's application. Basic science is getting knowledge just for the sake of it." And you basically followed with it. Basic science is the foundation engineering builds on. I believe 1st semiconductors were a science experiment. Em waves were. Gigantomagnetoresistance was. The internet was an academic curiosity. It think it's important to blow some of human work on the free thinkers. It moves the popluation forward. Any other comparable scientific and engineering progress I can think was fueled by war. Imho allocating resources only for acute goals lead to local technological optima. Seemingly puporseless research helps to break out.
- jean23 7y ago
  My favourite example is number theory, which was either hailed or ridiculed for millennia as being pure mathematics that can and will never be applied to real life problems. Today number theory is the basis for several important fields of application, including computation theory, modern cryptography, and numerical calculation.
  - roca 7y ago
    Yes, but the question is, did developing number theory hundreds of years in advance of its applications accelerate the development of, say, cryptography? Or would cryptographers have just worked out the number theory when they needed it? If it did accelerate the development of cryptography, how much acceleration did we get for that investment? Also in modern times, especially, there is a big problem of discoverability. If the mathematical result you need for some application is buried in a thirty-year-old journal using unfamiliar terminology, what are the chances you'll find it and understand it when you need it? I venture to suggest that much of the time it's easier to re-derive the result than to find it.
    - OnlineGladiator 7y ago
      That's a good point, but I think a strong counter-example would be anything we get from satellites. We went to space for political reasons, but let's just say it was for the sake of science because it sure didn't solve any immediate problems for mankind. But it did create the technology for satellites, which allow us to better predict the weather and gives us GPS tracking, and other things as well. But imagine you wanted to develop a global tracking system, would your first thought be to invent satellites if they did not already exist? So it definitely does matter sometimes, although which times is obviously open to interpretation.
      - roca 7y ago
        I think that is a weak counter-example. The applications of rocketry and satellites were obvious by the end of WW2. In 1945 Arthur C. Clarke had already published an article explaining how useful it would be to have communication satellites in geostationary orbit, and it didn't take much imagination to suppose that a big enough rocket could put them there.
- CharlesColeman 7y ago
  > I believe 1st semiconductors were a science experiment. I'm pretty sure the transistor [1] was invented specifically to solve a real engineering problem. [1] I'm taking your use of "semiconductor" to mean transistor because my understanding is semiconductors are a kind of material that was discovered, not invented.

kian 7y ago

Fantastic mondegreen ("knit pick", like picking at stitching with knitting needles, as opposed to "nit pick", which is picking off lice eggs to prevent future annoyance)

adfkbuvasdas 7y ago
The eye of my mind saw a pick made knitted out of wool, which was even funnier.
Waterluvian 7y ago
"Mondegreen" is a word I've needed but didn't know existed. Thanks for sharing. All intensive purposes. Get down to brass tax. There's a lot of these that I've uttered or heard and they last a long time because they sound kind of sensible.
- alasdair_ 7y ago
  “Knowledge is power. France is bacon” is a personal favorite.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- GuiA 7y ago
  https://reddit.com/r/BoneAppleTea https://reddit.com/r/BoneAppleTea

aplanas 7y ago

> For example, detecting gravity waves does move the needle on any of these metrics It will surely do. Those achievements are not possible without staggering advances in technology that can be later applied in different fields. The same technology that we first developed for those expensive colliders is now used in MRI and others diagnosis tools that we have for granted today.

31b3r3t7 7y ago
Don't forget the web: https://home.cern/science/computing/birth-web https://home.cern/science/computing/birth-web
Anon84 7y ago
> The same technology that we first developed for those expensive colliders is now used in MRI and others diagnosis tools that we have for granted today. The question is, how much better would "MRI and other diagnosis tools" if that money had been spent actively trying to improve them instead of mostly going to detecting gravity waves? That's the question you need to answer to justify spending billions chasing physicists latest "fetish". "Big physics" proponents always justify wasting (in my opinion) billions in colliders and observers by the unintended benefits that accidentally derive from them but they never mention how much more progress those other ares could make by directly using that money.Instead of spending $40B in the next big collider, what if we were spent developing CRISPR and related technologies? Or on a "moon-shot" for AGI? On developing new tools and techniques to study and understand large scale social systems? P.S.: I have a BS/MS/PhD in Theoretical Physics
- roca 7y ago
  Exactly. Arguments for "spinoff benefits" from research always seem really weak to me. If you want lighter, imperishable food, invest in food preservation, not a space program that might happen to produce freeze-dried food.
  - theossuary 7y ago
    I'm not 100% convinced. I think it's hard to get really smart people to work on problems that aren't interesting. Asking a team to make food preservation 10% better won't invite the creativity and determination that asking them to preserve food to Mars would. I think, when you take humans into account, you're better off setting interesting and challenging goals, with many useful byproducts.

stan_rogers 7y ago

Speaking of nitpicking, it's nitpicking - literally speaking, removing the eggs of the lice you've probably already removed from someone's hair. It's a fussy activity (of necessity), takes forever, and would probably seem quite an annoying thing to someone (likely a child) who thinks you've already solved their pressing problem and should maybe leave them alone now.

vo2maxer 7y ago
Speaking of nitpicking or the more practical nit combing, none is needed if a 0.9% suspension of Spinosad (1) is applied to a child’s dry hair and washed off after 10 minutes. You may happily and confidently send your kids back to school after this one treatment despite the horrified looks of parents and teachers ;-) (1) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3273925/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3273925/
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  From link: The average cost of an application of permethrin 1% cream is about $20; an application of spinosad costs $270 without insurance. Ouch!
- YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
  Or you can just let your kid have that fuschia mohawk she wants. The eggs will fall off the shaved part and the peroxide and glue will kill off the rest in the unshaved part.