[Tanny (OP)]

Is there any point to scientific research?  Should we fire all the scientists?

For today, the value of the work being done by scientists all over the world depends upon a single thing, that we avoid nuclear war.  Over the longer run, the value of research depends upon us successfully managing all other powers the scale of nukes every day forever.

If we fail at managing the vast powers we already have created, and will continue to create, then most or all of what is learned by today's research will  likely be swept away in a crash of civilization, and thus has no value.   As example, if a safe is going to fall on my head tomorrow then what I learn today has no value because I won't be here to put what has been learned to constructive use.

Thus, the value of today's scientific research depends entirely on the question of whether we can manage the civilization threatening powers generated by science.

This forum serves as a good example of the brilliant blindness of the scientific community.   Observe how all of you are endlessly engaged in discussion of technical details with little to no interest in where this process is leading, or whether the process has any value.  The conversations are intelligent, but blind.  And it's not just members here, it's the whole scientific community.

If I were to propose the existence of a god, you would reasonably ask for proof.  In that same spirit, I am challenging the "science clergy" to provide proof that their discoveries have value, that is, won't be swept away in a coming crash of civilization.  I respectfully decline to accept that value on faith.  And I am questioning why we should pay people who can't demonstrate the value of their work in a convincing manner, and typically won't even try.

Here's what I mean by "science clergy".   Watch how few if any scientists here or elsewhere will meet this request for proof head on in a serious thoughtful manner.  Observe how, if they engage at all, they will offer an "above it all" defense, and attempt to sweep the challenge aside with a lazy wave of the hand and a few cliches.  That is, look closely at how they hope we will accept the value of their work on faith, just as they do. 

Scientists are not bad people, that's not the problem.  The problem is that, like all the rest of us, their intelligence goes so far and then it ends.  The problem is that the reductionist nature of science means that most scientists are people with a natural talent for burrowing deep in to a narrow topic, which seems to make them uniquely unqualified to analyze the big picture bottom line.

If the bottom line is that what is being learned by today's research is going to be swept away in a coming crash, and may even cause that crash, then....

Why are we paying for that information?

[guest39538]

All , is a very precise word.  Why on Earth would we sack/fire all the scientists?

There are many scientists who work in areas that are needed such as medicines and energy efficiency.  Not all science is dogma.

You are correct though if we have a nuclear war or an ending war as I considerate it, there is little point.  However if we all thought on them lines, we might as well fire/sack everyone from every job there is,  their jobs also being pointless.

[Tanny (OP)]

There are many scientists who work in areas that are needed such as medicines and energy efficiency.

I would agree that it's easier to make the case for research that can be put to immediate constructive use.  The longer the time frame being considered the more challenging it becomes.  As example, what's the justification for spending billions on Higgs Boson research?

You are correct though if we have a nuclear war or an ending war as I considerate it, there is little point.  However if we all thought on them lines, we might as well fire/sack everyone from every job there is,  their jobs also being pointless.

Shouldn't we all be thinking along these lines, given that the collapse of civilization is a very real possibility that could happen literally at any moment?   Wars have been a consistent pattern in human history since at least the invention of agriculture.  Why should we assume that pattern has ended?

The problem I think is that we are making the mistake of assuming the future will be like the past.  You know, we assume we will continue to have wars, and continue to recover from them.  Intellectually we know this may not be true, but emotionally we cling to this outdated notion because it provides hope, it tells us what we want to hear.

At least most scientific research is based on this outdated idea, that we will be able to fix whatever we break, thus civilization will continue and the research done today will be preserved, passed on, built upon etc.

I'm proposing that scientists are uniquely unqualified to consider the inconvenient new reality being created by the knowledge explosion, because to do so is to put their careers in jeopardy.  But in spite of this glaring built-in weakness, scientists still have a LOT of cultural authority, and we tend to look to them for answers to such questions.

Perhaps instead of firing the scientists we should just fire their cultural authority?  For example, perhaps we should view them like we would highly trained car mechanics, and not expect credible commentary from them regarding the knowledge explosion as a whole?   

[guest39538]

As example, what's the justification for spending billions on Higgs Boson research?

I was just saying something similar to my friend about LIGO ,    unless there is some goal at the end .  To me money would  be best invested into an escape plan, for we are prisoners on this rock and don't even realise it.  We await our death sentences from our life imprisonment or our self destructive nature. A nuclear deterrent should not b against each other, it should be aimed at the sky just in case.
Our goal suppose to be survival but corporate intervention rules the world.

Perhaps instead of firing the scientists we should just fire their cultural authority? 

I do not think you understand, the government is ''science'' and the poor old scientists have little say.   How do you fire the government without a civil war?

I'm proposing that scientists are uniquely unqualified to consider the inconvenient new reality being created by the knowledge explosion, because to do so is to put their careers in jeopardy.

A good point, but the stereo typical scientist is needed and can learn the new.  For example I am not a scientist but have some revolutionary ideas that are hard to consider because they are so advanced and ahead of the times.
I would need to work side by side a typical scientist so we can learn each other. 
So I do not feel their jobs are in jeopardy they are still a part of the same team, our team.

[Tanny (OP)]

  For example I am not a scientist but have some revolutionary ideas that are hard to consider because they are so advanced and ahead of the times.

It's people like you who are leading us to the end times!!!  :-)

So I do not feel their jobs are in jeopardy they are still a part of the same team, our team.

I agree, their jobs are not in jeopardy.  But should they be?  Should we just keep on blindly funding a knowledge explosion without knowing where it is taking us?

[guest39538]

It's people like you who are leading us to the end times!!!  :-)

Well not really, because I am very different to the normal crowd.  I can dissociate myself from all the drama . I believe we can make a force field that Nuclear missiles will bounce off.  I am the sort of person that wants to end wars and have one united world.

I agree, their jobs are not in jeopardy.  But should they be?  Should we just keep on blindly funding a knowledge explosion without knowing where it is taking us?

It depends what we are funding, if in ways it helps humanity then yes it is well worth the funding.  However if it is blind science  then of course why bother to begin with?
Funding dead ends is a bad long term  investment but it can have short term success.

[Bored chemist]

Obviously, we should fire all the artists for the same reason: if we all die in a nuclear war, what's the point of art.
And, of course, the same is true of medicine- pretty pointless if we are all dead.
Teachers- not a valid career really is it?- after all, the kids they teach will die anyway.

In fact it's perfectly obvious that, if we are  all going to die then there's not much point doing anything.

Do you see how this idea isn't getting anything done?

[The Spoon]

I would rather fire all of the pseudo-scientists who post seemingly nonsensical obviously false 'science' ideas. Ideally into space.

[evan_au]

I'm proposing that scientists are uniquely unqualified to consider the inconvenient new reality being created by the knowledge explosion

How do you test that assertion against several similar claims?:
- I'm proposing that politicians are uniquely unqualified to consider the inconvenient new reality being created by the knowledge explosion
- I'm proposing that clergy are uniquely unqualified to consider the inconvenient new reality being created by the knowledge explosion
- I'm proposing that the public are uniquely unqualified to consider the inconvenient new reality being created by the knowledge explosion
- I'm proposing that Biddelonians are uniquely unqualified to consider the inconvenient new reality being created by the knowledge explosion
- I'm proposing that many people with a university degrees are uniquely unqualified to consider the inconvenient new reality being created by the knowledge explosion

The fact is that these are all unreasonably broad generalizations which are provably false in particular cases.

What we can say is that the culture of science (and those who practice it), starting from the beginnings of Agriculture have tackled larger and larger projects, at higher and higher cost, which have had a larger and larger impact on the planet. To the point where humanity is now consuming resources far faster than they can be replenished.

In the long term, this is ultimately unsustainable unless we really cut back on our energy and raw materials budget, or discover an energy source like nuclear fusion. Controlled fusion is a massive challenge, which is absorbing large amounts of scientific effort (see one critique here), and is based on research at the LHC and its ancestors.

In the shorter term, a number of widespread disasters (including human-induced ones like wars) could also result in a severe population crash.

The money spent on the LHC, LIGO or ITER is large, but almost nothing compared to how much we spend on motor vehicles, cosmetics, armies or soft drinks/soda.

I suggest that with a human population now over 7 billion, it is mostly continual advances in responsible use of science and technology that is holding off the human crash (the animal, plant, fish and insect crash is already underway).

It is irresponsible use of science and technology that could bring the human crash earlier - witness egocentric and narcissistic politicians launching nuclear rants at each other from opposite sides of the globe.

[Tanny (OP)]

Obviously, we should fire all the artists for the same reason: if we all die in a nuclear war, what's the point of art.  And, of course, the same is true of medicine- pretty pointless if we are all dead.  Teachers- not a valid career really is it?- after all, the kids they teach will die anyway

Artists, doctors and teachers will not be providing the means by which civilization will be crashed.  Artists, doctors and teachers all provide immediate value which doesn't depend upon the future.   

If scientists wish to keep their jobs, they will have to display more compelling reasoning than this.

[Tanny (OP)]

Evan, thanks for engaging, much appreciated.  Please forgive (and maybe scold) if I become over enthusiastic, obviously I have an incurable obsession with this topic which sometimes leads to impatience, and other undesirable by-products.

How do you test that assertion against several similar claims?:

You skipped over WHY I claimed that scientists are uniquely unqualified to see the big picture of the knowledge explosion which they are leading.  Again, the reductionist nature of science requires people whose natural talents lie in being specialists in narrow topic areas. 

It doesn't automatically follow that those who are expert at developing knowledge (detail people) are also expert at understanding where the knowledge explosion is taking humanity (big picture question).  Being an expert specialist on technical details does not automatically qualify one to see the big picture, and may in fact be a liability.   On top of that, scientists probably have an understandable financial bias in favor of the knowledge explosion status quo continuing, which may blur their vision further. 

Should we accept the authority of scientists when they are speaking to their narrow specialized field?  Yes.  They've done that homework, and we in the public have not.

Should we accept the authority of scientists when they speak to the knowledge explosion as a whole, where it is taking us etc?  Maybe we should, IF they can explain how we will successfully manage every existential scale power every day forever.  That's the bottom line that any credible commentator must address, because if the knowledge explosion status quo continues unedited that will be the deciding question.

Here's what would reassure me.  Clean up the messes we've already made before continuing to make new ones.  So for instance, the vast majority of research funding might be directed at the nuclear threat, and global warming threat.  If we fixed those two problems, ok, that would be evidence that we can proceed with some confidence.  But of course, this proposal will be rejected out of hand.

What we can say is that the culture of science (and those who practice it), starting from the beginnings of Agriculture have tackled larger and larger projects, at higher and higher cost, which have had a larger and larger impact on the planet. To the point where humanity is now consuming resources far faster than they can be replenished.

I would grant that this problem could conceivably be solved by science. However, we should squarely face the fact that we may not even make it to this problem.  It's probably a race between the two.

In the long term, this is ultimately unsustainable unless we really cut back on our energy and raw materials budget, or discover an energy source like nuclear fusion.

The development of a totally free completely clean unlimited energy source would result in the economy taking off like a rocket, causing us to burn through other resources at an ever faster pace.  Nuclear fusion would be an amazing TECHNICAL accomplishment, but it's effect would be mostly to simply move the problem from one box to another. 

Do you see how you've intelligently addressed the detail, while missing the larger picture?  It's not just you, it's the scientific community generally, and the larger culture too.   

I suggest that with a human population now over 7 billion, it is mostly continual advances in responsible use of science and technology that is holding off the human crash (the animal, plant, fish and insect crash is already underway).

It was the well intentioned intelligent responsible use of science and technology which has caused the animal, plant, fish and insect crash.   You know, we didn't do this on purpose, we thought we were making advances. 

It is irresponsible use of science and technology that could bring the human crash earlier - witness egocentric and narcissistic politicians launching nuclear rants at each other from opposite sides of the globe.

Again, respectfully, you're missing the larger picture.    Egocentric and narcissistic politicians didn't have the ability to crash modern civilization until the knowledge explosion gave them that power.  We are developing more powers of this enormous scale as fast as we can, and egocentric and narcissistic politicians will still be here when those ever larger powers arrive.

The logic math here is ruthlessly simple, which is why I get frustrated when intelligent people like scientists don't get it.   If we keep going in the current direction, it's only a matter of time until some collection of insane people use the ever growing powers to bring the house down.  No one can say exactly who, when, or how, but we can say with great confidence that it will happen sooner or later if we stay on the current course.

As example, say we left a loaded gun on a table in an elementary school.  No one can predict when tragedy will strike, but we know that sooner or later it will.  Thus, we don't leave guns lying around schools.  We don't give kids powers that they can not reliably manage. 

But we are determined to give the adults who were only recently children as much power as we possibly can as fast as we possibly can. 

[Tanny (OP)]

Should we fire the funders of science instead?

Imagine a giant asteroid was discovered on a collision course with Earth.  Imagine that the funders of science argued that we have to stick with the status quo, and that we can't radically shift funding priorities to address this existential threat.  Imagine that no one was really even talking about shifting our funding priorities, that life went on pretty much as always, and most of us were entirely content with that arrangement.

1) Would you consider that insane?

2) How is it really any different than our approach to nuclear weapons?

[guest39538]

Should we fire the funders of science instead?

Then all the scientists would be sacked anyway because there would be no funding.

[Petrochemicals]

if a safe is going to fall on my head tomorrow then what I learn today has no value because I won't be here to put what has been learned to constructive use.

Well if you had learned about the problems of safe/fhead meetings you would not waist your time. I would start a scientific investigation into why safes fall on your head. Publish a paper on safe/head relations, and produce a comprehensive  countermeasure to stop safe/head collisions including not to walk under ladders, and look up when around tall buildings.

It is true though that science does seem to be leading itself and us into destruction. Money makes the world do around, money employs scientists to make more money at the expense of everything else. If there was no money there would be no scientists, and scientists are only there becquse money wants them to be.

[Kryptid]

This is about like arguing that you shouldn't buy groceries because you might die in a car crash on the way home from the supermarket and therefore won't be able to use them.

[The Spoon]

This is about like arguing that you shouldn't buy groceries because you might die in a car crash on the way home from the supermarket and therefore won't be able to use them.

Exactly. I dont see how this is a new theory either. More a a Gove/Trump type rant against 'experts'.

[Tanny (OP)]

scientists are only there because money wants them to be.

Agreed.  Scientists are doing the job we hired them to do, and they're doing it well.  Thus, the title of this thread is reasonably debunked.

The problem is probably better described as follows...

We used to have a kind of blind belief in whatever the religious clergy said.  We wanted to believe that somebody had the answers, and so we turned to those offering answers. 

Somewhere along the way many people lost faith in the religious clergy, and so we went looking for another trusted authority to believe in.  Scientists were doing a good job of providing the goodies we want,  so we shifted our need for authority to them.  Scientists are human like the rest of us, so they willingly accepted the role of being the new cultural authorities. 

This system of authority works so long as it is limited to technical matters, the arena in which scientists have expertise.  So, for instance, if we want to know if climate change is real and caused by humans, it is scientists we should ask because that's who is expert in such matters.

The problem arises when we look to scientists for answers to questions that scientists aren't that qualified to address.  As example, after discussing this for years, I'm convinced that the science community really has no idea where the knowledge explosion is leading us, and more telling, they typically don't care.    Scientists are doing the job we hired them to do, developing knowledge, and big picture topics like where the knowledge explosion is going are largely seen to be off topic.  As example, such conversations make up a tiny fragment of this forum, they're almost invisible.

Scientists are like engine room mechanics doing a good job of keeping the knowledge explosion ship moving through the water at ever accelerating speeds.  That's what we asked them to do, and they are doing it.

But nobody is steering the ship.  All of us, including the scientists in the ship's engine room, are just plowing blindly forward through the water to whatever fate awaits us.  Sooner or later we're going to crash in to something and sink, and it's probably unreasonable to blame the guys in the engine room for that.

[Tanny (OP)]

I dont see how this is a new theory either.

Which branch of science is making a serious disciplined study of where the knowledge explosion is leading us? 

Which specific scientists (names please) are discussing the common sense logic presented in my threads on this subject?  As example, which specific scientist is attempting to answer this question....

How will we successfully manage every single one of the existential scale technologies (capable of crashing civilization) which will emerge from the knowledge explosion (at ever faster rates) every single day, forever?

Again, if we can't answer that question, there is no future for science.  It's an extremely relevant question for the scientific community to be asking.  Who specifically is asking it?

Which specific scientist is turning to their colleagues and publicly saying, "Hang on guys, we'd better slow down until we figure out where we're going"?

Which specific scientist is calling on us to redirect most scientific research to decisively address the most pressing immediate existential threat currently facing humanity, nuclear weapons?   Which specific scientist is making the point that unless we solve that problem, and solve it soon, there's probably no point in continuing any scientific research?  Who is saying this?  What is their name?

The problem is this. 

I am articulating the common sense bottom line logic which no scientist will be able to defeat.  But I have no social authority, no credibility, no elevated status.  And THAT is what human beings listen to, not logic.

These two things are related.  It's because I have no status that I have nothing to lose, and am thus liberated to follow the logic trail where ever it goes, however inconvenient that may be.  Few scientists are in that position.  Most have children to feed, mortgages to pay, they can't afford to put their careers at risk by wandering too far outside of the sanctioned group consensus.

Those who can see can not influence, and those that could influence can not afford to see.

   

[Tanny (OP)]

This is about like arguing that you shouldn't buy groceries because you might die in a car crash on the way home from the supermarket and therefore won't be able to use them.

The thread may be better described going over the heads of some readers.  Many readers here are probably a third my age.  It's not reasonable for us to expect everyone at every level of experience to be able to fully follow every conversation.  The anonymous nature of the Net tends to create the impression that everyone participating is about the same, a compelling illusion.

[Kryptid]

The thread may be better described going over the heads of some readers.  Many readers here are probably a third my age.  It's not reasonable for us to expect everyone at every level of experience to be able to fully follow every conversation.  The anonymous nature of the Net tends to create the impression that everyone participating is about the same, a compelling illusion.

I'm aware that we should try to mitigate the risks of a future disaster, but telling us that scientists are useless because we might all die in the future is pretty inane.