[Closed] Scientific 'Exploration' - worth it, or a waste of time and money?

Very soz wrong forum. 😳

Science gives you the means to make the weapons, religion the excuse to use them.
Two sides of the same tarnished coin.......

Thats that then. Sack the scientist, make our women walk around under a tent and fiddle with the kids.

Worth it imho. Can't stay on this rock forever so I hope one day we can find away off to allow just a bit of the human race to survive a bit longer.

Also look where technology was 100 years ago...we've come a long way in a short period of time, certainly relative to earth's history. Imagine what we can discover in the next 100+ years...if we don't blow each other up.

That's quite a profound notion, Hilldodger.

Starseven; I don't think you quite understood the question...

Is it worth it?

You were able to post on here because of scientific 'Exploration'
Or we could just live in a mud hut.Also available due to scientific exploration.

You think those buildings are staying up because there's a guy inside praying that they won't fall down?

Do you have any idea how ironic it is that you are complaining about science on the Internet?

science is awesome..............religion is shyte, imho

I just like the fact that the thing that supports the drill is called a 'Derrick'

Derrick: The main hoist winch and a system of elevators lifts 1,250 tons of pipes and machinery through the 72-
foot-wide opening in the bottom of the ship.

No no no; don't misunderstand me, I'm not against all Scientific Exploration(I have said this), I just question the 'value' of some projects. I'll admit I have no idea of what the LHC is or what it's purpose is, but I think it's fair to say that a large proportion of Space Exploration doesn't seem to have brought mankind the kind of benefits that were promised us back in the early days. Indeed, NASA have scrapped loads of recent projects, and the US govt has routinely cut back funding year on year.

One example that springs to mind, is that British Mars probe; all that money, and time and effort, and the bloody thing broke down immediately it got there.

I just think that there are times when money could be better spent on applications of real, tangible benefit, not on playing 'who can get to the Moon first'.

You think those buildings are staying up because there's a guy inside praying that they won't fall down?

Hahahaha brilliant statement, and pretty much ends the debate right there.

The OP's argument is one that I would expect from George W. Bush, or other some right-wing religious monkey who doesn't understand the full implications of how our scientific endeavour benefits us.

In the end, knowing is much more interesting than not knowing so why not?

The space technology trickles down to things like mobiles, tvs and broadband from military networks!

Understanding what is out there and a better understand how we work on Earth.

Treating medical conditions, environmental issues, improve humankind and our instinct of what is out there!

Sorry I used to work as a biochemist because I watched too much star trek as a kid!

STWers in 'flying off the handle at the merest hint of criticism of Science and completely missing the point' non-shocker... 🙄

I'm not criticising [i]all[/i] science, you numpties. Just some of the seemingly useless/not particularly meaningful projects that always seem to cost billions of dollars yet seemto produce bugger all end product.

Nowt wrong with wondering about stuff,and tryingto find out about stuff, but resources are finite, and all I'm suggesting is that perhaps some could be put to better use.

Have a little think before responding please. This was intended as an attempt to stimulate lively, interesting and perhaps enlightening debate. I believe this is possible... 😀

Now, I'm off down the offie. Anyone want anything?

A lot of the manned flights into space was just showing off. China are doing the same thing now.
Probes that are sent into space are much better, cheaper. Things will break down though, but it doesn't mean you should give up.

but I think it's fair to say that a large proportion of Space Exploration doesn't seem to have brought mankind the kind of benefits that were promised us back in the early days

I am a science fan, I think of myself as a scientist, logical and that 🙂 but what benefits were promised? I seem to remember some stuff about being able to grow perfect crystals maybe on Tomorrows World but otherwise it was just regular science with the added bonus of removing one factor (gravity). Now the "race to space" stuff, that created some technology I am sure.

EDIT- I think the end product is often knowledge rather than something tangible.

do life saving drugs come from science too???

or do you just pray to save a life??

For me, putting techno-junk into orbit and seeing who can spin their atoms the fastest whilst people die for want of basic medical care and clean water is pretty much the antithesis of civilised behavior.....

Have a little think before responding please. This was intended as an attempt to stimulate lively, interesting and perhaps enlightening debate.

Don't worry, TJ24 will be along soon to tell us all what to think 😆

do life saving drugs come from science too???

No, most life saving drugs come from applied technology rather than big science....

Here you go, Ton; little bit of help for you, as you seem to be struggling:

I'm not criticising all science, you numpties. Just some of the seemingly useless/not particularly meaningful projects that always seem to cost billions of dollars yet seemto produce bugger all end product.

OK?

For me, putting techno-junk into orbit and seeing who can spin their atoms the fastest whilst people die for want of basic medical care and clean water is pretty much the antithesis of civilised behavior.....

Thank you, hilldodger. That's the kind of thing I'm on about.

so we should only do science we know is going to work?

how would you decide whether something is going to be useful before you start?

disproving a hypothesis can be as useful as proving a hypothesis....

It's the unexpected benefits that projects can sometimes bring which surprise:
The L. Hadron Collider's forerunner, CERN, gave birth to the web/internet.
The space race, although willy-waving, gave skills in rocketry to put up satellites for GPS and communications protocols for mobile phones.

So the answer is sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Even India managed to do it last year using our aid money.

so we should only do science we know is going to work?

But 'doing' science needn't be about spending billions of dollars, I think was the OPs point.

It's not about the pros and cons of science itself as a worthwhile human endeavor but how the funding is allocated and what projects are prioritised.

I'm sure if 1% of the NASA or CERN budgets had been put into projects of more direct social impact that both the big boys would have still been able to play with their big toys but also the quality of many peoples lives would have been significantly improved - I call that win/win 😀

OK, I'll admit I was a little provocative with my OP, but with all the criticism of Religion, I thought it was time Science had a turn...

There's some good responses here. Certainly, I believe it's worth pursuing an idea, but it seems that sometimes, the application of Science is akin to the corruption of Religion for those seeing to further their own ends. The scientist J Robert Oppenheimer, quoting the Bhagavad Gita, claimed:

If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the mighty one." and "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.

This followed the first tests of the Atom Bomb. A scientific project that went on to create a threat the World had never previously envisaged. Now, nations posture like strutting cocks with their nuclear arsenals, in some futile dance of death.

Indeed, it could be argued that far too much scientific method and theory is applied to destruction and oppression. The Kalashnikov is more valuable than a Human Life, in some parts of the Globe. It's a pity such energy can't be applied for the good of all people, rather than to serve the interests of the few...

first it's a pop at religion, now it's a dig at science.

'the secret is to bang the rocks together, guys'

[i]Indeed, it could be argued that far too much scientific method and theory is applied to destruction and oppression[/i]

It's always gliby dismissed as something like 'science doesn't kill, people do' but it's harder to wipe out a nation or social group with a pointed stick than a cluster of high explosives.

Scientists sufficiently arrogant to put their own curiosity and pride above any degree of social conscience or morality are the direct counterpart of the religious bigot who uses peoples beliefs to turn them against each other.

Basically we're a bunch of over tooled savages that will try to turn any object of beauty, worth or splendor into a way to degrade, destroy or debase our fellow man.........

.....knowledge without wisdom I think someone called it 😥

Is it me, or did Talkemada used to be a well upholstered steeplejack from bolton?

Blimey Hilldodger; you keep coming up with succinct and insightful comments. Careful...

Science enjoys, all too often, too much respect, imo. Not all the results of Scientific endeavour have benefitted Mankind. Many have in fact served to be used as tools against Humanity. The Space Race was a thinly veiled development program for weapons systems. As for any beneficial spin-off products, who's to say they could not have been developed from more peaceful and benign investigations?

Judging by historical evidence, I can't help but be a little wary of projects such as the LHC. Would such vast sums of money be spent on purely compassionate projects? Hmm...

I'm off to watch CSI:NY. 😀

Hmmm, I was right then, Fred Dibnahs back in town...

AFAIK the cost of the LHC is around 6.5 Billion EUR which is a little less than 10 times the annual EU emergency aid budget :(. Ok, that's since 1995 but even so. Having seen villages flattened by weapons that cost more than the combined population of the village would ever see in their lifetimes, a wee bit spent on some social rather than the scientific wouldn't be a bad thing.

and as for science, I still find it strange that we are comfy that it says that the world suddenly appeared out of nowhere and that all that we can see in the universe is only 5% of what has to be there, we just can't find the rest. It's not because its too far away, it's just here and hiding under the bed, in the closet etc. really. We don't even know what this 95% is. Or maybe I don't get it.

>Starseven; I don't think you quite understood the question...

No I think starseven's bang on the money. The Wright brothers pioneered human flight on December 17, 1903. In just over 100 years look what has been achieved - man on the moon, space vehicles on Mars, probes exploring our solar system. All in only 100 years of powered flight!

Don't write it off when it's only just started.

I'm not criticising all science, you numpties. Just some of the seemingly useless/not particularly meaningful projects that always seem to cost billions of dollars yet seemto produce bugger all end product.

So how do you know, beforehand, which is which? Faraday was asked the same question by Gladstone, as to what the value of electricity was.

I don't think you quite understood the question...

I don't think I do either.

What exactly are you on about mate ?

I'm sure if 1% of the NASA or CERN budgets had been put into projects of more direct social impact

Leaving aside the obvious idiocy of the argument, the US spends roughly twice as much on foreign aid as it does on NASA.

But isn't the chain from Wright brothers to space probes largely due to developments in technology and manufacturing processes than 'science'

It's difficult to distinguish the 'tools' from the 'job' sometimes - I like to think that (perhaps excepting microprocessor tech) that the scientists/engineers of a few hundred years ago could pretty much have most of todays sci-tech explained to them in terms they'd soon come to grips with.

It still surprises me how old some of the major scientific advances are, last century IMO has seen the engineers and technologists take the lead whilst the scientists faff around with imaginary solutions to outdated concepts.

Science = concepts and ideas
Technology = the means to explore/exploit them

I don't claim to be anything other than an everyday bench level scientist but I do like to think I keep abreast of 'the big picture' and have a fair idea of 'what's going on in the world of science'.
From my perspective the last 50 years hasn't seen many advances in 'thought science' that even come close to the advances in tech/engineering.

Would be more than happy to be corrected..........

Leaving aside the obvious idiocy of the argument, the US spends roughly twice as much on foreign aid as it does on NASA.

Are you sure about that? I thought the USAID budget was roughly the same as the NASA one and NASA is only one thing - the US has their own equivalent of the LHC as well for example.

The question really isn't that idiotic. Scientific exploration has a real place and there will always be the poor and starving but sometimes there seems a real imbalance.

So what is the deepest we have ever explored?

2 thoughts:

'But isn't the chain from Wright brothers to space probes largely due to developments in technology and manufacturing processes than 'science''
-Yes, but where do you think the developments in technology came from? Engineering is basically applying science to real problems. The skills involved are similar but sufficiently different that both are needed.

'Or maybe I don't get it' (not wanting to single anyone out, this one's quite common)
-To a large extent, you don't get it. Neither do I. Or a lot of people. The current theories on the origins of the universe, particle/quantum physics etc are horrendously complicated and really quite difficult to follow. But quite a lot of people have spent a long time working on them, it's not just one persons best guess. Dark matter etc is a good example - sounds really, really far fetched, but there's quite a lot of work showing that it's a fairly plausible theory. Not 'getting it' is fine*, assuming that it must be wrong because of that is maybe a bit hasty.

*That's not what she said.

Not 'getting it' is fine*, assuming that it must be wrong because of that is maybe a bit hasty.

Must have been badly written on my behalf then. I don't assume it's wrong because of that or anything else. Not only have a lot of people spent a lot of time working on it, there are real practical outputs from the same theories. The engineering/science stuff you referred to. I just find it strange that we (including me) are comfortable with it all because it is more than just a little weird

Doubting current investment now in scientific endevours is like questioning a man 3 centuries ago who built a wheel (or whenever, I have no idea when wheels were first invented). Yes, it might not seem hugely prosperous now but open your mind and accept the effort needs to be made now to lay groundwork for future enterprises.

I think the key problem is the poor communication of the output of scientific experimentation to the masses. This lack of knowledge transfer and dissemination is exactly why people doubt the use of science and exactly what threatens its funding.