5 ms·
So how does the scientific community decide which are the theories that is worth spending time on to prove them and which are not ? Are there personal biases ?
by thallukrish 7y ago
So how does the scientific community decide which are the theories that is worth spending time on to prove them and which are not ? Are there personal biases ? How do we know choosing theory X over theory Y to prove will advance Science and humanity ? Is it just the budget available to prove theory X over theory Y the criterion?
- z3phyr 7y ago>So how does the scientific community decide which are the theories that is worth spending time on to prove them and which are not? Four primary variables: 1) Collective interest of the researchers in the topic of attack 2) Collective interest of the financiers of research on some application of the topic of attack 3) Funding for research 4) The effective tools for experiments are already invented and available (example, a microscope)
- thallukrish 7y agoSo it is possible that we could have pursued(time and money) on things that do not turn out to be impactful or left out working on those that could have had a major impact.
- z3phyr 7y agoYes. But it does not matter. We do not do science for some high level goal of "Benefit for humanity". I love stars, I like astronomy, and when I study the stars, I do not think about how my study would impact humanity. I just study them because I find them interesting. (Studying star systems do not actually have much impact on humanity in general, mostly). Attempting to qualify science only limits it.
- thallukrish 7y agoThat probably explains why we didn't put money in an anti viral drug which would have saved lives during a pandemic. Our goals if you look from a humanity or global perspective are misplaced