2 ms·
Right, the whole problem is that most of the subfields look probably-useless until someone goes all the way down the path and discovers a use. So the benefit s
by waqf 13y ago
Right, the whole problem is that most of the subfields look probably-useless until someone goes all the way down the path and discovers a use. So the benefit side of the cost-benefit looks like huge benefit times small probability, and that's a calculation that's very sensitive to error.
To continue your example: one of my ancestors worked on investigating the semiconducting properties of germanium in the '30s, but he couldn't think of anything it might be useful for. Oddly enough, he's not mentioned in the history books.
- yummyfajitas 13y agoAs I said, "if we can identify useless segments of these fields". I didn't say we could actually do that. I'm not a strong proponent of cutting scientific funding. Science contains a lot of stories about random seemingly useless research coming in handy in 10-30 years. Medieval literature has far fewer stories, however. (Incidentally, in case you think we don't currently attempt to predict the future uses of assorted subfields, you've clearly never looked at the NSF budget.)