It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Teenager questioning Hawking(190 posts)(190 posts)
(190 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
This is my favourite topic
Posted June 20, 2011
avatar
Skystrider: Long term survival of mankind. Good enough practical application for you?
avatar
GameRager: Why can't I have my opinion? You guys are acting all defensive like I punched einstein's ghost or something.
Oops, sorry if I seemed hostile, I honestly didn't intend that as an attack. Just stating my own opinion is all.

The fact is that even the most theoretical of sciences can have unexpected applications. There is no such thing as useless knowledge.
Posted June 20, 2011
avatar
GameRager: Why can't I have my opinion? You guys are acting all defensive like I punched einstein's ghost or something.
avatar
Skystrider: Oops, sorry if I seemed hostile, I honestly didn't intend that as an attack. Just stating my own opinion is all.

The fact is that even the most theoretical of sciences can have unexpected applications. There is no such thing as useless knowledge.
I agreed, many times in here in fact. The thing i'm mad about is no one seems to get that i'm not saying theoretical sciences is useless.....just that it's mostly not useful in the present term.
avatar
Taleroth: It's impossible to know the practical applications entirely in advance. We wouldn't have been able to figure out quantum computing before quantum mechanics, would we?
Did I say we had to? Just saying that the kids were right, in a weird way, that black hole sciences aren't as useful as other sciences and current research in terms of immediate or near to it benefit to mankind, or as needed as stuff like nanomedicine or artifical organ grow tanks.
Post edited June 20, 2011 by GameRager
Posted June 20, 2011
avatar
GameRager: The thing i'm mad about is no one seems to get that i'm not saying theoretical sciences is useless.....just that it's mostly not useful in the present term.
Because it's a stupid thing to say. If it was useful, it would be applied sciences.

You're basically being redundant and treating it as insight. Yes, theoretical science is theoretical. I'll give you both that credit. For what none that is worth.
Post edited June 20, 2011 by Taleroth
Posted June 20, 2011
avatar
GameRager: The thing i'm mad about is no one seems to get that i'm not saying theoretical sciences is useless.....just that it's mostly not useful in the present term.
avatar
Taleroth: Because it's a stupid thing to say. If it was useful, it would be applied sciences.

You're basically being redundant and treating it as insight.
Not being redundant pal.......stating facts. Now stop getting so upset already it's just my two cents. I'm not a dictator banning all scientific progress am I?

Oh and i'm actually poiting out that OP's pic has some merit albeit the kids said it in an odd way....that applied sciences are more useful to us currently. I do disagree with same kids that theoretical sciences are totally useless though.
Post edited June 20, 2011 by GameRager
Posted June 20, 2011
avatar
GameRager: ]Not being redundant pal.......stating facts.
Your fact is a redundancy. Theoretical science is not applied science. That's the entire content of your facts.

Dead people aren't alive.
The brain dead don't have ideas.
Two is a plural.
Post edited June 20, 2011 by Taleroth
Posted June 20, 2011
avatar
GameRager: ]Not being redundant pal.......stating facts.
avatar
Taleroth: Your fact is a redundancy. Theoretical science is not applied science. That's the entire content of your facts.
Yes but I wouldn't have had to state these things if some here had gotten the gist of my original reply.....thus necessitating the semi-quasi-possibly redundant replies which followed.

Now plz, if you must lord one over me do try to do it with more class and penache.....thanks in advance. Or maybe even pick a reply to belittle that actually deserves to be belittled.
Post edited June 20, 2011 by GameRager
Posted June 20, 2011
avatar
GameRager: Or maybe even pick a reply to belittle that actually deserves to be belittled.
I think I've done that.
Posted June 20, 2011
avatar
GameRager: Or maybe even pick a reply to belittle that actually deserves to be belittled.
avatar
Taleroth: I think I've done that.
Not really. You could've found some poor soul that actually agrees with the kids in OP's pic or thereabouts to take on. Yet you take on mine for an issue as minor as some supposed redundancy? Bah.

There, there...be nice and i'll buy you a shiny new particle accelerator....model. (Disclaimer: Antimatter and Higgs-Bosons not included, usage may form nano-scale black holes and could possibly fuck space-time up in your residence, results may vary.)
Post edited June 20, 2011 by GameRager
Posted June 20, 2011
Gamerager you're completely missing the point. Science isn't about instant gratification. The fact that you don't feel the direct impact of theoretical sciences in your daily life (a statement that can be debated) doesn't mean that it is any less important in the now than any other field of study. One of the earlier posts said it best. The future of mankind's existence seems pretty damn important to me.

Relating back to the pic now. I almost forgot to comment on how they basically say "screw science, global warming doesn't exist and oil is indefinite." it's borderline hilarious. In a "our world is in for a dark future if this is who will be ruling it" kind of way.
Posted June 20, 2011
low rated
avatar
sk8ing667: Gamerager you're completely missing the point. Science isn't about instant gratification. The fact that you don't feel the direct impact of theoretical sciences in your daily life (a statement that can be debated) doesn't mean that it is any less important in the now than any other field of study. One of the earlier posts said it best. The future of mankind's existence seems pretty damn important to me.

Relating back to the pic now. I almost forgot to comment on how they basically say "screw science, global warming doesn't exist and oil is indefinite." it's borderline hilarious. In a "our world is in for a dark future if this is who will be ruling it" kind of way.
Not missing the point. I am more for practical uses of science than theoretical ones, although I see some merit in both.

And tell your bit about theoretical science being important in the now near or as much as practical research and they'll laugh you out of the boardroom/grant office. In most cases, they want results for their investment, not what amounts to grow up kids playing with larger and more expensive toys(even if it does herald some interesting data) with no returns.

And I agree they said many dumb things, but I wasn't commenting on those, just in how they sort of said practical applications trump theory in the here and now, and they do...whether you lik to admit that or not. Science isn't just for the benefit of the scientist but all mankind, and what uses it can be put to.

And yes the future of mankind is important, but remember that we are a short-lived, impatient lot.......some of us just want our flying car and we'll be happy. If the other scientists want to get on that and save some time for theory, then that's their business. (This is how I view humanity in this last bit, and is not my full/personal sentiments.)
Post edited June 20, 2011 by GameRager
Posted June 20, 2011
avatar
sk8ing667: In a "our world is in for a dark future if this is who will be ruling it" kind of way.
They'll be lucky to rule a McDonald's.

Everyone knows that the future rulers of mankind will be people who don't express idiotic ideas, they instead express meaningless statements. While hiding their idiotic ideas for when it hurts us the most.
Posted June 20, 2011
avatar
sk8ing667: Gamerager you're completely missing the point. Science isn't about instant gratification. The fact that you don't feel the direct impact of theoretical sciences in your daily life (a statement that can be debated) doesn't mean that it is any less important in the now than any other field of study. One of the earlier posts said it best. The future of mankind's existence seems pretty damn important to me.

Relating back to the pic now. I almost forgot to comment on how they basically say "screw science, global warming doesn't exist and oil is indefinite." it's borderline hilarious. In a "our world is in for a dark future if this is who will be ruling it" kind of way.
avatar
GameRager: Not missing the point. I am more for practical uses of science than theoretical ones, although I see some merit in both.

And tell your bit about theoretical science being important in the now near or as much as practical research and they'll laugh you out of the boardroom/grant office. In most cases, they want results for their investment, not what amounts to grow up kids playing with larger and more expensive toys(even if it does herald some interesting data) with no returns.

And I agree they said many dumb things, but I wasn't commenting on those, just in how they sort of said practical applications trump theory in the here and now, and they do...whether you lik to admit that or not. Science isn't just for the benefit of the scientist but all mankind, and what uses it can be put to.

And yes the future of mankind is important, but remember that we are a short-lived, impatient lot.......some of us just want our flying car and we'll be happy. If the other scientists want to get on that and save some time for theory, then that's their business. (This is how I view humanity in this last bit, and is not my full/personal sentiments.)
ummm ... basic research gets funded by grants and governments. Does it get funded by corporations? No, because you're right the return on the investment is too long and you don't make any off of the basic research anyway since that is shared by the community. That's why governments fund basic research. They're the only ones with a long enough view and they benefit from third-party improvements to the economy. However, I don't know why we are discussing this ... I think we've already established that someone needs to develop theoretical principles before someone develops practical research tools before someone engineers a product like say flying cars. Is the basic research as "sexy" to the man on the street? No, for the most part, with a few exceptions, probably not. But I fail to see the importance of that except that it underscores the need for a better education system ...
Post edited June 20, 2011 by crazy_dave
Posted June 20, 2011
avatar
crazy_dave: ummm ... basic research gets funded by grants and governments. Does it get funded by corporations? No, because you're right the return on the investment is too long and you don't make any off of the basic research anyway since that is shared by the community. That's why governments fund basic research. They're the only ones with a long enough view and they benefit from third-party improvements to the economy. However, I don't know why we are discussing this ... I think we've already established that someone needs to develop theoretical principles before someone develops practical research tools before someone engineers a product like say flying cars. Is the basic research as "sexy" to the man on the street? No, for the most part, with a few exceptions, probably not. But I fail to see the importance of that except that underscores the need for a better education system ...
Some theoretical science is sexy to me. :(
Posted June 20, 2011
avatar
GameRager: Some theoretical science is sexy to me. :(
Never said it wasn't ... I was speaking in generalities.
Posted June 20, 2011
avatar
Skystrider: Long term survival of mankind. Good enough practical application for you?
pervert

In other news I have nothing constructive to add, as you were.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Teenager questioning Hawking(190 posts)(190 posts)
(190 posts)