4 ms·

Like, I said, it was an honest question. The answer, according to, you is: Nothing. Fair enough. I'm aware that there's an off-chance that basic research can b

Like, I said, it was an honest question. The answer, according to, you is: Nothing. Fair enough. I'm aware that there's an off-chance that basic research can become useful for something. Of course people always point to GPS as an example. You can say that about pretty much any research, however. Since resources are finite, should we not focus on basic research that has the most promise of practical usefulness? As far as I can tell, particle accelerators are used to prove hypotheses whose truth/falsehood are not practically meaningful to pretty much any human being alive, now or in the future. It's an expensive hobby for physicists, as far as I can see. Again, I'd love to hear a better argument than the old "basic research is good because GPS".

wyattpeak 7y ago
GPS is always used as an example because it's a clear demonstration that discoveries don't have to have effects at the human scale to be useful, not because it's the only example of basic research that's paid off. All electricity, all chemistry, started out as expensive hobbies for rich people. Go back to the Greeks and steam power and automation were seen as expensive hobbies for rich people. None of these things were thought to be practically meaningful to pretty much any human being alive. There is only a small chance that any given piece of research is useful, to be sure. Basic research is fundamentally about long-shots. But without basic research, you never get to the stage of directed research. You can't work out the best way to increase transistor density if you don't first work out what electricity is. But in the nineteenth century, it would have been wiser to have directed all that research into electricity into practical things like hydraulics. Where would we be now if we'd taken that path? If you think there's nothing else to be found in physics, sure, we can stop. But plenty of people in the ancient world thought there was nothing left, too. All of those detractors have been wrong right up until the last century. The question is, how sure are you that you're the first generation in two thousand years to be right?
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > If you think there's nothing else to be found in physics, sure, we can stop. But plenty of people in the ancient world thought there was nothing left, too. To the contrary, I think there's an infinite amount of things to be found out, across all sciences. However, for all I can tell, CERN is out to prove hypotheses for which no one today can conceive of any use whatsoever. By contrast, there are many relatively low-hanging fruits in science and engineering that aren't long shots at all. I'm not gonna say the billion-dollar budget of CERN should be re-appropriated, but it does seem overblown. In any event, I'm not at all worried about CERN shutting down because helium gets to expensive.

wyattpeak 7y ago

GPS is always used as an example because it's a clear demonstration that discoveries don't have to have effects at the human scale to be useful, not because it's the only example of basic research that's paid off. All electricity, all chemistry, started out as expensive hobbies for rich people. Go back to the Greeks and steam power and automation were seen as expensive hobbies for rich people. None of these things were thought to be practically meaningful to pretty much any human being alive. There is only a small chance that any given piece of research is useful, to be sure. Basic research is fundamentally about long-shots. But without basic research, you never get to the stage of directed research. You can't work out the best way to increase transistor density if you don't first work out what electricity is. But in the nineteenth century, it would have been wiser to have directed all that research into electricity into practical things like hydraulics. Where would we be now if we'd taken that path? If you think there's nothing else to be found in physics, sure, we can stop. But plenty of people in the ancient world thought there was nothing left, too. All of those detractors have been wrong right up until the last century. The question is, how sure are you that you're the first generation in two thousand years to be right?

gridlockd 7y ago
> If you think there's nothing else to be found in physics, sure, we can stop. But plenty of people in the ancient world thought there was nothing left, too. To the contrary, I think there's an infinite amount of things to be found out, across all sciences. However, for all I can tell, CERN is out to prove hypotheses for which no one today can conceive of any use whatsoever. By contrast, there are many relatively low-hanging fruits in science and engineering that aren't long shots at all. I'm not gonna say the billion-dollar budget of CERN should be re-appropriated, but it does seem overblown. In any event, I'm not at all worried about CERN shutting down because helium gets to expensive.