4 ms·

I tend to think of this xkcd [1] comic when people talk about 'solving the big problems we face' instead of doing blue-sky research. [1] https://xkcd.com/1232/

by DC-3 6y ago

I tend to think of this xkcd [1] comic when people talk about 'solving the big problems we face' instead of doing blue-sky research. [1] https://xkcd.com/1232/ https://xkcd.com/1232/

throw0101a 6y ago
> [...] instead of doing blue-sky research. In 1921 the photoelectric effect, for which Einstein won a Nobel, was blue-sky research with no practical applications. Fast forward a few decades and it was used as the basis for making laser: you know, those things that all modern communication uses to transfer information over long distances. While it is up to debate how much to spend on "blue-sky research", cutting off funding to 'basic science' is rather short-sited as we cut off future 'practical' developments that can improve our lives if we don't have the foundations of the basics to build on.
- dekhn 6y ago
  photoelectric effect in 1921 was definitely not blue-sky research with no practical applications; it was one of the core problems in physics at the time.
  - throw0101a 6y ago
    > it was one of the core problems in physics at the time. What were the specific "practical" problems that investigating and figuring it out that were solved?
    - dekhn 6y ago
      photomultiplier tubes. At the time the effect was discovered, PE was recognized experimentally (and exploited), but unexplained, and once it was, development of PMTs (critical to a wide range of practical technologies) was greatly sped up. This led to high quality television cameras not long after...
- garmaine 6y ago
  The photoelectric effect paper of Einstein was 1905, no?
Chathamization 6y ago
Well, that's a bit of a strawman. There are very few people who think we shouldn't spend any money on blue sky research. It's more of a question of how much we should spend, which blue sky research we should fund, and how those projects are set up. There are neuroscientists who are critical of the Human Brain Project, not because they're against funding of neuroscience in general, but because they don't think this particular project isn't well designed. There are people that are supportive of a lot of the work NASA does, but don't think human space flight specifically is a good use of their budget.

by DC-3 6y ago

I tend to think of this xkcd [1] comic when people talk about 'solving the big problems we face' instead of doing blue-sky research. [1] https://xkcd.com/1232/ https://xkcd.com/1232/

throw0101a 6y ago

> [...] instead of doing blue-sky research. In 1921 the photoelectric effect, for which Einstein won a Nobel, was blue-sky research with no practical applications. Fast forward a few decades and it was used as the basis for making laser: you know, those things that all modern communication uses to transfer information over long distances. While it is up to debate how much to spend on "blue-sky research", cutting off funding to 'basic science' is rather short-sited as we cut off future 'practical' developments that can improve our lives if we don't have the foundations of the basics to build on.

dekhn 6y ago
photoelectric effect in 1921 was definitely not blue-sky research with no practical applications; it was one of the core problems in physics at the time.
- throw0101a 6y ago
  > it was one of the core problems in physics at the time. What were the specific "practical" problems that investigating and figuring it out that were solved?
  - dekhn 6y ago
    photomultiplier tubes. At the time the effect was discovered, PE was recognized experimentally (and exploited), but unexplained, and once it was, development of PMTs (critical to a wide range of practical technologies) was greatly sped up. This led to high quality television cameras not long after...
garmaine 6y ago
The photoelectric effect paper of Einstein was 1905, no?

Chathamization 6y ago

Well, that's a bit of a strawman. There are very few people who think we shouldn't spend any money on blue sky research. It's more of a question of how much we should spend, which blue sky research we should fund, and how those projects are set up. There are neuroscientists who are critical of the Human Brain Project, not because they're against funding of neuroscience in general, but because they don't think this particular project isn't well designed. There are people that are supportive of a lot of the work NASA does, but don't think human space flight specifically is a good use of their budget.