To fund or not to fund - Are some science projects worth pursuing?

My post was a response to certain comments made by Michael: The main point of my post was to comment on this comment. Namely, my points were:(1) Michael is, perhaps, too pessimistic, and it may very well be possible to learn a great deal about the subject, perhaps even enough to qualify as an "expert", depending what one considers to be an expert. In fact, knowing how much time and money people spend on hobbies to which they are devoted, he may not even have to wait until retirement.(2) If it were, indeed, impossible for non-researchers to understand a particular field deep enough to appreciate it, then I would agree that an argument could be made that it should not be publically funded.The second comment is the one that is relevant to this thread, which is about funding of scientific research. The other comments to which you seem to object were only introductory statements to get to this point.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

Perhaps then may I respectfully suggest leaving out insults aimed at a 3rd-party from your introductory statements?

Shrug.I will respectfully suggest that if you don't like the way I interpreted your posts then you should take more care in phrasing your comments.Edited. It sounded like I was claiming to speak for another member.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 01-Apr-2006 08:52 PM

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

Oh yeah?Well, I respectfully suggest that you... oh, never mind

[qs=Chiroptera]... if a significant portion of the public cannot understand the work in any field enough to truly appreciate, then the enterprise becomes essentially ma[s]turbatory.[/qs]Chiroptera succinctly states the situation I am trying to address (perhaps I should not have interjected my personal reaction to your comments to Buzsaw).My interpretation of what has been said so far:

---

There are two ways by which anyone with an interest, some minimum aptitude, the drive, and an open mind can learn about particle physics/astrophysics/cosmology.The first way is to read and understand books written by scientists--for laymen--working in the given field of study. Examples of such authors would be Steven Weinberg, Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene (Kip Thorne?, John Gribbin?--I think we should start another thread to talk about specific authors and books, if you are willing). If a layman were to stop here, the best that she would have is a set of analogies that attempt to describe the science but are insufficient for real understanding.The second way, and the only way to gain real understanding, is to get a PhD from a well-regarded university. But even then that real understanding will only be in the area of specialization.

---

I'd like to try to get your statement to Chiroptera in message 29 into this context: So, is there hope for the layman if she is just interested in understanding cosmological implications and not the advanced math?Do you disagree with Chiroptera in message 27?

[qs]The pure science of yesterday has a habit of becoming integrated into the practical science of today. If a country does not wish to fund pure science, then it can take that gamble. And its pure scientists will go elsewhere...Originally you said: But this is only important if a significant portion of the public can understand the work enough to truly appreciate it?Actually, I think your concern is slighlty more selfish Surely that's the crux? That is what drives every scientist. Real understanding is relative. Many times I have sat in the company of some of the bigger names of my field, and been utterly lost. I would say that such layman knoweldge is insuffient to have realistic orginal thoughts. But again, I am talking about my field, the search for quantum gravity and the Theory of Everything, which is an extension more of mathematics than physics. With cosmology and astrophysics, you have a much greater chance of getting close to "real understanding" becasue you are dealing with physics. True, but the more you push into one area of specialisation, the more understanding you will gain in surrounding areas. Yes, absolutely. You have to be willing to put in some serious thinking and time, but you'll get there.This all started with the Buzzsaw discussion where he claims that BB and TD are incompatible. This is very deeply rooted in the advanced math of GR, QM, and QFT and far far from Big Bang cosmology. Anyone can learn anything given sufficient ability to understand, sufficient patience and determination to persevere, and sufficient resources from which to learn. I would add one more for particle physics and GR: sufficient willingness to let go of preconceived ideas. Also, as you get deeper into these subjects, you realise that you are studying more pure mathematics than physics. Yeah, why not. Apart from Gribbin, all of the rest know exactly what they are talking about (well, I have serious disagreements with Weinberg but that is a different story, and his book is awesome)This message has been edited by cavediver, 04-02-2006 01:56 PM

As I said early on in the topic, I'm not totally against government funding of esoteric science. It's not even a matter of if the general public can understand the results of the study. It's a mater of if the public is funding it with large amounts of money, then the research should result in some real benefit or promice of benefit to the public.It may be interesting to probe the origins of the universe, but I see no benefit or promice of benefit to the general public coming out of it.Moose

I don't think anyone saw any benefits of QM 100 years ago either... from PET scans to your PC, sometimes you have to wait quite a while for the benefits.

Hi, Michael.I don't have anything to add to what cavediver says. I will extend some of my previous comments, however.I said that if you are willing to spend the time and effort (and the investment might be considerable), you can understand GR and/or particle physics as much as you want.This might not be true. I am a mathematics instructor. I see a very large number of students who have only a limited capacity for abstract reasoning and thought of the type necessary to do well in mathematics. Comparing American students to students in other countries, I feel that this reflects prior preparation as well as a commitment to spend the time and effort to master the subject. I acknowledge that there are some who simply cannot, no matter what their efforts, ever really obtain a high level of mathematical skill. But I want to believe that these are a very small minority of people.But I have to acknowledge the possibility that, just as only a very small number of poeple are biologically capable of becoming Olympic athletes, only a small number of people have the innate capabilities to really be able of the sort of hyper-abstraction required for mathematics. I don't think this is the case, and I hope not, but the possibility exists. In that case, it is possible that it is not possible for most people to really be able to understand GR or particle physics beyond a certain very simplistic level.Also, there is the philosophical question of how much mathematical models really give us in terms of understanding reality. At one extreme would be the a more or less Platonic view in which the world is mathematics. In that case, according to GR the universe is a 4 dimensional manifold with a non-positive definite metric, and so if you can conceptualize this then you understand what the true universe is like.On the other hand, there is also the other extreme the universe is what it is, and the most mathematical models do for us is allow us to calculate very precise values for the results that we are supposed to measure without the mathematics really describing reality. In other words, modelling the universe as a 4 dimensional manifold in which time is just another coordinate just like the three spatial ones may allow us to very accurately predict gravitional lensing, and the existence of phenomena attributed to gravitational waves, but that is not the same thing as saying that time actually is a coordinate just like the three spatial ones.In the former case, understanding differential geometry and group theory and functional analysis and so forth does allow us to understand the universe. In the second case, understanding mathematics may give us some insight into how the universe works, but true reality will remain hidden behind the veil of maya. I don't know which view is correct, or if the correct view is between these extremes, or even how to determine which view is correct.Bah. Sorry for the philosophizing.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

quote:

---

It may be interesting to probe the origins of the universe, but I see no benefit or promice of benefit to the general public coming out of it.

---

Personally, I think a lot of people saying, "Gee, that is so cool!" is itself a benefit. And, in fact, my opinion is that for any science this is the only true benefit, regardless of what "practical" applications come out of it.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

Just to weigh in on this. This is mainly addressed to Michael. This is closer to what most physicists mean when they say somebody has "no clue". Everyday, the more I read about any subject, I always end up slapping myself on the head and thinking:
"Man, and here I thought I understood the French Revolution/First Person Shooter Graphics engines/Virology/.......e.t.c."In every subject I realize that my previous ideas of "what it was all about" were silly and uninformed. Just today, for instance, I was given a book by a friend about Late Jurassic Dinosaurs living in Antarctica. There's a whole ecosystem I know nothing about.So don't worry. I know far less about dinosaurs than a palaeontologist. I'll also never be at the cutting edge of palaeontological research, but sure so what?Those "don't have a clue" comments are directed mainly at people who don't want to understand because they already have it all "figured out". Eventually you get pissed off with them and say something that sounds like a harsh generalization.So in essence, read what you want to read and you'll learn what you want to learn.
It might take a while before you get GR, but it'll be a while before I'm up to speed on Cryolophosaurus.(I hope this didn't sound like an after school special)This message has been edited by Son Goku, 04-10-2006 06:51 PM

From message 3 of the new "Reaching the practical end of physics?" topic: This reminded me of this older topic I started. Might fgarb be interesting in commenting?Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

​

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

​

"Nixon was a professional politician, and I despised everything he stood for ” but if he were running for president this year against the evil Bush-Cheney gang, I would happily vote for him." - Hunter S. Thompson

​

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

I think we are overly focussed on the very esoteric areas of QM and cosmology. If the above is a requirement for funding then there will not be much of anything funded.I'd suggest that the average man-on-the-street can not understand much of what goes on in almost any field.The wonders that are uncovered as we do more genome readings, the chemistry involved in understanding how they affect disease processes in our bodies, the complexity of ecological webs, the physics involved in the global warming debate, the real nature of a clone -- all these seem to be beyond a real appreciation by a very large number of the taxpayers funding it.The research going on to produce better batteries, the trade offs in using them, the physics of new types of TV sets. The list that the average Joe can never understand includes all the leading edges of science and technology today.I am not one who thinks that all that many people can, even with a lot of effort, ever understand much of this. Just like the Olympic athlete example we are all limited in different ways.

You know when the question came to my mind, I thought of this thread and was like... maybe I'm starting to feel a bit like minnemoose. I wasn't sure where this thread was buried so I started my own.I have to admit I'm still not convinced we are at a real end, but I'm wondering if a practical end can be reached and if it is felt... by those in the field... that these new findings have real world uses.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Nuggin: You should check out the Bayh-Dole act on google to see why exactly the government is supporting research in this way. Basically, the rational for this strongly supported bill that passed with wide majorities is that the government wants to advance as much science and technology as possible as fast as possible that is in the publics interest. And, surprise, surprise, they determined that the best way to do this is to make such research as remunerative as possible to the participating parties.The act has been an unqualified success in promoting research and bringing the fruits of that research to the public. And the industries that have been spawned by that research have paid back the country, including taxpayers like you, 1000 fold in employment and taxes. Understanding the intricacies of these issues is one of the reasons this country is a republic and not a democracy.