Current Events > On "the lie" of basic science.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://medium.com/the-spike/on-the-lie-of-basic-science-279c8a31e27f

[...]Basic science is the pursuit of knowledge for knowledge sake. Its unrestricted exploration of big questions by trained, equipped, smart people is a good thing for society. For who knows where the answers to our problems may be found?

Daniel Sarewitz calls this The Lie. He argues that science disconnected from technology, from rooted, real-world problem solving, is lost. That basic science does not, and never has, made good on its promise to find benefits to society from the free exploration of ideas by unfettered intellects and driven curiousity seekers. Instead, he calls for abandoning the idea of state-funded basic science, and turning to a problem-driven culture.

If you are a scientist, you almost certainly do not agree. I am; and instinctively I do not. But he makes a compelling case, putting forward a litany of discomforting facts and examples. While his may be an extreme position, it forces us to consider how we can justify the existence of science.[...]

---

Up.
---

I mean he raises a good point, one of the bigger philosophical qualms of science: at its root it's driven by narcissism.

Scientific research for a given purpose to reach a goal that benefits society is noble. Generic experimentation just for the sake of answering a question nobody asked, well, that's pure ego.
---

tl;dr:
"'Science' has become a circlejerk of journal submissions, funded mostly by taxpayers. Instead, science needs need to be directed towards dogpiling solutions to tangible and defined problems."

I guess Einstein wasnt so smart after all!
---

science a bunch of bull one time a "scientist" told me the sun is a star lmao it aint no star its a sun lol i dont believe any of that carp cuz you know they be lyin
---

ForestLogic posted...

I mean he raises a good point, one of the bigger philosophical qualms of science: at its root it's driven by narcissism.

Scientific research for a given purpose to reach a goal that benefits society is noble. Generic experimentation just for the sake of answering a question nobody asked, well, that's pure ego.

The author of this article argues against that point.
---

I think that is a pretty weak defense of 'basic science' tbh, but that is probably because the initial article itself was not a very good attack on it
---

KLouD_KoNNeCteD posted...

science a bunch of bull one time a "scientist" told me the sun is a star lmao it aint no star its a sun lol i dont believe any of that carp cuz you know they be lyin

scientists also say that the human body is 70% water. do i look like a fuckin lake to you, scientists?
---

tag so i can read that article later
---

Some of the well-known researchers in my area also complained about this at the main conference a few years ago. They got tired of the "let's tinker around with robots because they're cool" approach and talked about how we needed to shift to solving actual problems for about an hour. The discussion got kinda heated too.

Then we had our director at work tell us pretty the exact same thing as above a couple months ago. Publications and conference attendance won't be the main focus now, they'll be byproducts of research that addresses actual and specific problems X, Y, Z
---

Balrog0 posted...

I think that is a pretty weak defense of 'basic science' tbh, but that is probably because the initial article itself was not a very good attack on it

Fair, but the attack on basic science is almost always the same: basic science by definition isn't directly productive.

It's a shitty argument, but it gets made repeatedly, especially by government officials justifying the slashing of science funding.
---

COVxy posted...

Balrog0 posted...

I think that is a pretty weak defense of 'basic science' tbh, but that is probably because the initial article itself was not a very good attack on it

Fair, but the attack on basic science is almost always the same: basic science by definition isn't directly productive.

It's a shitty argument, but it gets made repeatedly, especially by government officials justifying the slashing of science funding.

The simple answer here is to just stop handing out grants like candy.

Define a goal, and pay scientists and engineers to achieve that goal:
"We're building an atom bomb before Hitler does!"
"We're going to the moon!"
etc

Questionmarktarius posted...

COVxy posted...

Balrog0 posted...

I think that is a pretty weak defense of 'basic science' tbh, but that is probably because the initial article itself was not a very good attack on it

Fair, but the attack on basic science is almost always the same: basic science by definition isn't directly productive.

It's a shitty argument, but it gets made repeatedly, especially by government officials justifying the slashing of science funding.

The simple answer here is to just stop handing out grants like candy.

Define a goal, and pay scientists and engineers to achieve that goal:
"We're building an atom bomb before Hitler does!"
"We're going to the moon!"
etc

I don't get the idea that you know how grant funding works.
---

Science is the method by which we know everything. Science is the only reason we know anything.
That being said, state-funded science is not a scourge on the taxpayers. NASA's budget makes up .5% of the total budget and they're under orders to put a man on mars by 2033 despite having nowhere near enough resources to do it.
---

COVxy posted...

I don't get the idea that you know how grant funding works.

Probably not, outside of hyperbolic rants about it.

Questionmarktarius posted...

COVxy posted...

I don't get the idea that you know how grant funding works.

Probably not, outside of hyperbolic rants about it.

Essentially you write a proposal, which takes slightly different forms depending on the type of grant, but that proposal invariantly has preliminary data and specific aims, i.e. goals. Grant proposals are hyperspecific and they are highly competitive, the idea that anyone is getting grant money like candy is beyond silly.
---

He's not completely wrong

(message deleted)
---

KLouD_KoNNeCteD posted...

science a bunch of bull one time a "scientist" told me the sun is a star lmao it aint no star its a sun lol i dont believe any of that carp cuz you know they be lyin

Um
---

shockthemonkey posted...

The idea of being paid to do science for science sake seems weird to me as someone who only works to fulfill the needs of a consumer base.

I mean, it's pretty easy to make the argument that all applied science started with basic science. Especially easy:
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/04/most-transformative-meds-originate-in-curiosity-driven-science-evidence-says/

But, even if we take this back a little and just discuss the benefit of knowledge for its own sake, beyond it making it possible to be more successful in producing things. Doesn't it feel important to simply know how the world around you works? Isn't there reward in simply understanding the mechanism by which something happens? The "a-ha!" moment feels really good, and isn't that enough? Like justifying elaborate food because of the reward in tasting it, as opposed to eating nutrition sludge.
---

If you agree with this you probably also agree that school is mostly pointless.

Each scientist has within a locked compartment of their mind another area of science they consider a waste of money. A field of science that sucks in money and returns little of value to society. Get them drunk enough, and theyll tell you what it is. If we organised a massive piss-up and took the consensus of every scientists secretly held desire to do away with their wastrel field, if we gathered them all together and acted on these secret desires, what would we be left with? Would any area of science survive? Few would be left standing, Id wager. Which means that as much as we might reflexively think Sarewitzs position is hogwash, collectively we probably arent that far from agreeing with him.

Yep.
---

Polycosm posted...

Each scientist has within a locked compartment of their mind another area of science they consider a waste of money. A field of science that sucks in money and returns little of value to society. Get them drunk enough, and theyll tell you what it is. If we organised a massive piss-up and took the consensus of every scientists secretly held desire to do away with their wastrel field, if we gathered them all together and acted on these secret desires, what would we be left with? Would any area of science survive? Few would be left standing, Id wager. Which means that as much as we might reflexively think Sarewitzs position is hogwash, collectively we probably arent that far from agreeing with him.

Yep.

This is the one part of it that I don't fully agree with him on. I mean, I have opinions about different fields like this (more likely types of scientific approaches rather though), but usually simply due to the lack of scientific rigor rather than some "usefulness" criterion.
---

Basic science is the stepping stone to more direct applications. You can't just fish in the dark for new advancements in engineering, medicine, technology without the framework and theory.

To uncouple that process is hubris (from the more "applied" scientists).
---

COVxy posted...

Balrog0 posted...

I think that is a pretty weak defense of 'basic science' tbh, but that is probably because the initial article itself was not a very good attack on it

Fair, but the attack on basic science is almost always the same: basic science by definition isn't directly productive.

It's a shitty argument, but it gets made repeatedly, especially by government officials justifying the slashing of science funding.

True, but this one was especially bad IMO. Like the whole thing about cancer advocates making cancer science better omg

Like my dad literally takes gleevec for his particular kind of cancer, which is something an article your article cites mentions as an example of a discovery advocates wouldn't have funded. Because the science which lead to its discovery isn't obviously related to cancer.

Anyway it just made its point ready badly, I'm surprised anyone bothered to refute it. I guess this guy or publication must be important
---

COVxy posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

The idea of being paid to do science for science sake seems weird to me as someone who only works to fulfill the needs of a consumer base.

I mean, it's pretty easy to make the argument that all applied science started with basic science. Especially easy:
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/04/most-transformative-meds-originate-in-curiosity-driven-science-evidence-says/

But, even if we take this back a little and just discuss the benefit of knowledge for its own sake, beyond it making it possible to be more successful in producing things. Doesn't it feel important to simply know how the world around you works? Isn't there reward in simply understanding the mechanism by which something happens? The "a-ha!" moment feels really good, and isn't that enough? Like justifying elaborate food because of the reward in tasting it, as opposed to eating nutrition sludge.

If we take out of the equation that knowledge for its own sake can lead to unexpected discoveries which end up benefiting humanity, why should anyone fund basic science? Sure, you may feel great about some discovery, but 99% of the people on this planet probably wouldnt be as amazed or care at all about what you discovered if it doesnt provide any tangible utility in their lives. If scientists have such a desire, then they should come together to fund their own research and go circle jerk amongst themselves. But when the money of taxpayers and for profit institutions are in play, then scientific research should directly aim to provide practical solutions of worldly problems. This is of course assuming science for sciences sake doesnt indirectly lead to massive breakthroughs, which is not the case in reality, so I support funding for basic science.
---

I think it's good that some people work on basic science exclusively. Maybe it's something the government shouldn't spend huge amounts on, but as a society I am glad we dedicate some of our efforts to these things.
---

Balrog0 posted...

COVxy posted...

Balrog0 posted...

I think that is a pretty weak defense of 'basic science' tbh, but that is probably because the initial article itself was not a very good attack on it

Fair, but the attack on basic science is almost always the same: basic science by definition isn't directly productive.

It's a shitty argument, but it gets made repeatedly, especially by government officials justifying the slashing of science funding.

True, but this one was especially bad IMO. Like the whole thing about cancer advocates making cancer science better omg

Like my dad literally takes gleevec for his particular kind of cancer, which is something an article your article cites mentions as an example of a discovery advocates wouldn't have funded. Because the science which lead to its discovery isn't obviously related to cancer.

Anyway it just made its point ready badly, I'm surprised anyone bothered to refute it. I guess this guy or publication must be important

To be honest, you don't need a strong argument if your stance resonates with people. And this particular stance really does. Hell, much of the public equate science and technology, and don't really understand that basic science is a thing.
---

shockthemonkey posted...

The idea of being paid to do science for science sake seems weird to me as someone who only works to fulfill the needs of a consumer base.

Lmao should we as a society instead only pay wages to artificial bullshit jobs like executive assistants, middle management, and the like?

https://imgur.com/62mHs

Annihilated posted...

https://imgur.com/62mHs

I love that scene cuz he's ironically arguing more scientifically than the others, despite him arguing against science lol. Though, it doesn't have much to do with this topic.
---

Kazi1212 posted...

Sure, you may feel great about the process of scientific discovery, but 99% of the people on this planet probably wouldnt be as amazed or care at all about what you discovered if it doesnt provide any tangible utility in their lives.

You've never gotten into a discussion, realized you didn't understand how something works, wiki'd it, and continued the conversation?

It's like a regular occurrence for me, outside the context of my job.

I think people underestimate how much a coherent understanding of how things work affects their everyday life.

It's not tangible, but neither is the pleasure of eating a Bavarian cream puff, yet we still spend time and money buying them and shoveling them into our mouths.
---