3 ms·

We need to do basic science even if there is no direct benefit visible at the time. There were times when electricity was just a party trick, there was no pract

We need to do basic science even if there is no direct benefit visible at the time. There were times when electricity was just a party trick, there was no practical use for electrons or relativity for a while. It may take decades or longer to find a real world application but it’s still worth pushing science ahead. In the long run it pays off big time.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> We need to do basic science even if there is no direct benefit visible at the time But again, I can use this to justify anything. Why this basic science?
- usrbinbash 2y ago
  > But again, I can use this to justify anything. No, you cannot. To use your above example, I very much doubt that anyone has a workable plan to prove the existence of biblical angels that they could formulate in enough reason and technical detail to begin construction on a multi-billion-dollar project. People did, and do, have such plans for figuring out the reactions of elementary particles. There is a difference between "science" and "anything". > Why this basic science? Because elementary particle physics pretty much explain how the basic building blocks of the universe, and the forces governing them, work, and thus provide the most essential framework to understand the natural world next to mathematics? I'd say that's pretty important, and if we spend less than 30bn on that over a 10 year period, I'd call that a bargain, certainly compared to all the other crap society wastes money on. As long as we have the dough to give trillions in handouts to billionaires so they can buy more yachts, private jets and islands, I'd say we can spare tuppence for the science that furthers our species understanding of the universe.