Why pursue pure science

[The Guru Kid]

Even before i started attending high school, i knew i wanted to pursue science as my career. But after being a physics major for 2 years in Worcester Polytechninc Institute i am beginning to question why anyone would study pure science. I have focused on this question because similar ones were posed to me by fellow engineering students. "What practical purpose does that serve?".

I suppose the answer to that could be that many pursuits of science today will be used in future technology. But that is not guranteed and most likely whatever physicists are working on today, they will not live to see its applications. And i know that that is only an excuse used to achieve grants or donations from patrons and that the real reason is simply intellectual curiousity.

I am having an especially hard time with this because i cannot seem to reconcile pursuing pure physics with the Objectivist notion of productive work which can be traded for other values on the market.

For now I am considering doing applied physics or engineering for my graduate studies but the question remains as to why anyone would ever pursue pure science.

Guru

p.s. I exclude biology and other such sciences when I say pure science not due to their inherent nature but because they are obviously directly practical.

[LaszloWalrus]

In my understanding (which is limited in this regard), a lot of pure science IS directly applicable right after is is discovered (Newton's work and Einstein's work, for instance).

The joy of discovering new scientific principles and of struggling with hard questions in the sciences is probably an en in itself for many scientists. As far as people who fund science that is not directly applicable, doing so could slake the thirst of those who are interested in the sciences but do not have the aptitude (or the time) to pursue them themselves.

[D'kian]

I am having an especially hard time with this because i cannot seem to reconcile pursuing pure physics with the Objectivist notion of productive work which can be traded for other values on the market.

Finding new knowledge is productive work, even if the knowledge has no immediate practical application. There's plenty of intellectual curiosity to go around, too. A free ro semi-free economy manufactures a very precious commodity: time. Because of the tremendous production machinery, we can afford luxuries such as abstract knowledge, made possible by making money available for you, and other scientists, to occuppy their time in intellectual pursuits. Nor is this charity or even indulgence, as all knowledge eventually is good for something practical.

[Robert J. Kolker]

Finding new knowledge is productive work, even if the knowledge has no immediate practical application. There's plenty of intellectual curiosity to go around, too. A free ro semi-free economy manufactures a very precious commodity: time. Because of the tremendous production machinery, we can afford luxuries such as abstract knowledge, made possible by making money available for you, and other scientists, to occupy their time in intellectual pursuits. Nor is this charity or even indulgence, as all knowledge eventually is good for something practical.

Without theoretical physics the development of new technologies would be slowed to a trickle. In the last 50 to 75 (with the rise of quantum field theory) theoretical physics and technological innovation have gone hand in hand.

Bob Kolker

[DragonMaci]

Look at technology companies like Intel. They are consitnently trying to not just come up with new engineering feats (such as the briiliant engineering feats of the Core 2 architecture and of reaching 45nm, 35nm, and then 22nm fabrication), but find new knowledge of physics (in the form of new techniques and materials (such as carbon nanotubez)) that allow them to overcome the limits of their currect knowledge, techniques, and materials. This is an example of what Robert J. Kolker was talking about.

[JMeganSnow]

"What practical purpose does that serve?".

In Time for the Stars, Robert Heinlein makes the observation that there is *no* pursuit more eminently practical than pure, isolated, ivory tower science. It's true, too, as long as you are using a proper scientific method; this method ties your theories and observations back to reality and means that you are creating real knowledge about the operations of nature.

Since nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed, the more we know about nature the better we can structure our actions to obey the natural laws and the better we can turn the forces of nature to our own ends. Faster-than-light travel (assuming that there is some way to circumvent, if not break, the speed-of-light limit) is not going to be invented by an engineer dicking around in his garage. The principles are going to be discovered by some genius of a theoretical physicist and then later applied by some genius of an engineer. Now, if these two people are the same person, that's really impressive. Like genius^2.

A lot of engineering means devoting your life to pursuing many incremental improvements: this is a very gradual, creeping progression. When you make the jump to theory, though, you can have sudden, radical, world-changing discoveries in a comparitively short period of time.

[DragonMaci]

Faster-than-light travel (assuming that there is some way to circumvent, if not break, the speed-of-light limit) is not going to be invented by an engineer dicking around in his garage. The principles are going to be discovered by some genius of a theoretical physicist and then later applied by some genius of an engineer.

Yeap. No drucken idiot Zephram Cockram creating the first Warp 1 engine. A drunken idiot like Cockram could not of done that. You would need a genius engineer, if not several, working with knowledge of natural law that one or more brilliant theoritical physicist(s). Without people studying pure science, we will have no other Star Trek technologies either, such as repilcators, phasers, etc. Also, without people studying pure science we would not have many technologies of today, such as radio, TVs, DVDs, copmuters, and the internet.

[DarkWaters]

Without theoretical physics the development of new technologies would be slowed to a trickle. In the last 50 to 75 (with the rise of quantum field theory) theoretical physics and technological innovation have gone hand in hand.

Are there any present successful technological innovations that would not have been possible had it not been for advanced understanding of quantum mechanics? It would be interesting to see a list of examples.

I know D-wave systems claims to be the first quantum computing company, which at least in theory would lead to lots of applications in computation.

Edited June 15, 2007 by DarkWaters

[Robert J. Kolker]

Are there any present successful technological innovations that would not have been possible had it not been for advanced understanding of quantum mechanics? It would be interesting to see a list of examples.

I know D-wave systems claims to be the first quantum computing company, which at least in theory would lead to lots of applications in computation.

Just off the top of my head. No transistors, no lasers. Two of the three inventors of the transistor at Bell Labs were quantum physicists. They needed their theory to guide the work. I think Robert Shockley was the only non-physicist in the bunch. He was an electrical engineer.

Any technology involving anti-matter would not have happened either. For example pet-scans. the p in pet stands for positron. Also no MRI scan which involves both orbital spin and intrinsic spin.

And of course, no nuclear weapons.

Without quantum physics both physics and technology would be a century behind where it is now.

While General Theory of Relativity is not a quantum theory, its premier practical application, GPS would not be possible without quantum physics and its technology. The system uses Cesium atom clocks for accurate timing.

Bob Kolker

[DarkWaters]

Without quantum physics both physics and technology would be a century behind where it is now.

At the time of my post, I briefly forgot that Quatum Mechanics essentially entails all of physics at the atomic and subatomic level. Such study is obviously very important. I suppose I really wanted to know if particle/wave duality theory has led to any advancements in modern technology.

[Adrian Hester]

At the time of my post, I briefly forgot that Quatum Mechanics essentially entails all of physics at the atomic and subatomic level. Such study is obviously very important. I suppose I really wanted to know if particle/wave duality theory has led to any advancements in modern technology.

Electron microscopes. Neutron diffraction. The Compton effect (due to the particle aspects of photons) also has some uses in radiation therapy (and astronomy).

[The Wrath]

Don't forget quantum computing.

As to the topic of the thread, I am currently reading A Brief History of Time. Most of what's in the book is completely useless on a practical level, but I still find it deeply fascinating. I agree with whoever said that scientific knowledge is an end in itself.

[DavidV]

All knowledge is hierarchical. A particular theory may have has no direct practical application, but all new knowledge advances science as a whole. If "pure" means "unrelated to human values" and "science" means "knowledge of the nature of reality", then there can be no such thing as a "pure science."

One aspect of this fact is that scientific progress is tied to technological progress. Advancing our knowledge of nature requires ever more precise and powerful tools, which in turn are made possible by applying the latest theory.

Our understanding the basic nature of matter (which would probably be impossible without astronomy and cosmology) is essential to much of the technological progress during the modern age, and increasingly so.

The belief that an understanding of the basic nature of the universe is irrelevant to human values is a consequence of the concrete-bound mentality and religious nature of our society. Materialists cannot grasp the value of theoretical progress, while mystics associate cosmological questions with the religious -- and therefore the practically useless.

This is not to say that all new scientific knowledge is equally useful. The corruption of science by governments has redirected much research into areas with marginal value to human life.

[y_feldblum]

One aspect of this fact is that scientific progress is tied to technological progress. Advancing our knowledge of nature requires ever more precise and powerful tools, which in turn are made possible by applying the latest theory.

More than that, of course: both scientific progress and technological progress - in fact, all forms of progress in all aspects of human existence - depends on philosophical progress. (This is the point which Robert Tracinsky infamously disputes.)

[Tenure]

Also, might I add, don't give up on science as an imaginitive field, full of exploration and wonder, beyond just learning the facts and doing the experiments. Einstein was a genius, not because he was exceptionally good at maths, but because he was a great philosopher. He asked questions and he also knew science was necessary and only method of answering his questions. It was questioning the basic assumptions of gravity, and the following mathematical study, which lead him to Special Relativity.

Don't see it as 'Pure' science, anymore than art is 'Pure' art. One doesn't study art for the sake of drawing pretty pictures, as a scientist doesn't study science for the sake of doing silly experiments - it's just that you must be great and disciplined at your method, if you want to reach the goals you seek.

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

There are only a few things in any science that are "obviously directly practical."

Why did Aristotle study biology? Was doing so "non-productive work?" How about Linnaeus and Darwin? Were their basic discoveries non-practical? After all, their discoveries haven't resulted in any practical products, for the most part, except that a few plants Linnaeus described are not major workhorses for molecular biology a few hundred years later. Quite a long wait time for return on investment.

Sometimes the benefits of knowledge are not immediate. It's much easier to discover new things in the world as opposed to inventing, IMO. I have 60 new species on my shelf, but finding uses for them might take hundreds of years. That doesn't mean the knowledge I've discovered is useless. For one thing, I've enjoyed doing it, and I'm good at what I do and I take pride in that. Secondly, it serves as basis of knowledge for other evolutionary biologists, etc. who might someday come along and synthesize a larger work with what I've done. Knowledge is hierarchical. Darwin couldn't have formulated his theory of evolution without first having some species he described as the basis with which to work.

I am often asked why I do what I do (describe new species) and when I first became an Objectivist, I took on a lot of unearned guilt for thinking that I was somehow immoral for not doing something "productive." Yet these same people that couldn't understand my pursuits got all excited at a non-human robot picking through rocks on Mars that possibly contained water, and thus "might" have had held bacteria at some point. I reasoned from this observation that some folks get excited about traveling to some moon of Jupiter's not because the knowledge is actually immediately useful in any way (actually, it's a pure intellectual exercise at this point) but because they see it as adventurous, fun, heroic, etc. A new leap forward for mankind. They are excited about simply asking the question, "What if?"

Curiosity is a basic human attribute. In order to survive by reason, you have to take the elements of the physical world and put them together or take them apart to make something new. There's currently plenty of information around for engineers of all types to work with, but their applications of knowledge presuppose that someone discovered that knowledge in the first place. You can't have effects without causes. What if there's no new info. coming in? Eventually you'll run out of info to work with.

You don't really the advice of anyone on a forum to determine what you want to do with your life. Determine what your passion is, and simply make sure it's rational by introspection. Don't buy into unearned guilt for doing what you like. If you want to study pure science and discover something no one has seen before, do it. If you want to study engineering and make a product that is immediately useful, do that instead. Man survives by reason, and by adapting the natural world to himself. Part of that process is pure discovery; part of it is application of those discoveries. Where do you think your talents lie, and what would you enjoy and feel the most sense of accomplishment and pride doing?

[DarkWaters]

Electron microscopes. Neutron diffraction. The Compton effect (due to the particle aspects of photons) also has some uses in radiation therapy (and astronomy).

If you can, could you please elaborate on how electron microscopes became possible because of particle/wave duality? Compton scattering and its applications seems to be a good example.

Don't forget quantum computing.

It is my understanding that quantum computing still remains at the theoretical level. D-wave Systems has put on a demonstration, but I have not heard anything convincing yet. Of course, it would be interesting if quantum computing becomes a reality!

Edited July 19, 2007 by DarkWaters