I’m saying that practical utility is a reason to value science, it is not THE reason to value science.
I encourage you to read Abraham Flexner’s 1939 essay titled “The Usefulness of Useless Knowledge” and think about many of the most consequential discoveries in science and if they had a direct practical application at the time of their discovery. Of course some did, however many, perhaps most, did not.
This is an argument based on utility…
It’s not about knowledge for it’s own end.
What you are saying is that one should accumulate scientific knowledge irrespective of it’s current utility because it could become very useful in the future.
This is not pursuing knowledge for it’s own end. It’s a very utilitarian approach towards knowledge.
Future utility that you have absolutely no way of anticipating is one reason. The point is at the time of discovery no one had any idea the science would be useful so if you required research to demonstrate a utility at the time then that work would never get done.
The other reason against an immediate utility as a justification for science is that sometimes knowledge of nature is simply important in and of itself without any reference to utility future or current.
I’m familiar with that first argument. (We basically write down a form of it whenever we’re applying for basic research grants.) I believe it is not a bad argument, but let me be devil’s advocate for a moment.
Now this is a stronger rationale, if it’s actually correct. However, why is understanding and consuming art or understanding nature its own reward? Presumably it brings you some sort of pleasure. But is your pleasure more important than healing people who are very sick, lifting people out of dire poverty, or preventing climate change?
I agree… and people do this outside science also.
It’s called speculation… venture capitalists also do this to a degree.
Even lotteries are a similar example.
This approach is valid for any enterprise that has a high reward for a comparatively low risk.
This is the idea i want to explore. Knowledge of nature as a category. What gives this intrinsic value?
The other examples I gave like digging into ancient history, or increasing knowledge on hair styling are closely connected to the intrinsic value of the human experience.
For theists, nature has intrinsic value in that it is Gods work and hence knowledge about it has value on that basis. @dga471 mentioned this when he spoke of investigating nature as a form of worship.
Why would a non theist put value on knowledge of nature other than for utilitarian purposes or psychological preference.
So I started this and received quite a lot of consternation about saying creationists are more attracted to the utility of science than science for its own sake, and for me that would include a sort of theological utility associated with science justifying someone’s religious beliefs or conversely someone’s religious beliefs justifying their interest in science.
Now people seem to be saying science should in fact be focused on immediate utility.
I agree with you here. I think the conversation has turned to some other topics.
Except if you demanded science have an immediate application in mind as many funding institutions and other agencies and just grade school science judges do today then that critical work would have never been done so it would have to be initiated for reasons other than any immediate utility, or even foreseeable utility.
And once we heal the sick and raise people out of poverty what do we expect them to do with their lives exactly? For many being healthy and financially stable means pursuing their interests and that may mean lives in art, literature, natural history and basic science. These are worthy lives for people to live. I know many people for example who would think a life without birding is not a life worth living (that’s maybe only a slight exaggeration at best).
Do you want people pursuing basic research or even art and literature to drop everything and just pursue biomedical, engineering or other purely economically driven or immediately practical goals? I for one don’t.
For the record one could argue that pastors, philosophers and theologians are just as superfluous as artists, authors, natural historians and scientists pursuing esoteric basic research. I don’t happen to think that but they are not necessarily saving lives anymore than ornithologists are either.
Note - To avoid the impending misunderstanding and defensive posture I feel is to come…Of course many religious people are doing great things to alleviate poverty, heal the sick, and minister to the needy. I do not deny that. I’m simply saying those actions could be done without the theological/philosophical efforts. I would argue that theology and philosophy is necessary to lift the human condition in a very non-utilitarian way just as does art, literature, basic research and natural history so theology is not necessarily an applied field per se either so one may just as easily argue theology or more generally philosophy is equally unnecessary. I would not make that argument. Some politicians have made that argument as Marco Rubio did during his presidential campaign when he said America doesn’t need any more philosophers and that they should do something more useful or financially lucrative.
Not me. Science is its own reward. There does tend to be serendipitous utility which comes out of pure science, and pure math for that matter. Often, the practical spin offs are not from the discoveries themselves so much as the technology and techniques developed to do the work.
In a way it’s come full circle as now some seem to be arguing the value of knowledge of nature stems from a belief in God or the value is primarily utilitarian. These were my original points I was making about my experience with creationist attitudes towards the value of science.
So does science only has intrinsic value if you are a theist? Don’t get defensive. I’m merely asking what’s the value of science more broadly for everyone independent of whether or not they believe in god, if in fact you think it has value outside of your religious beliefs.
Of course this is a tough question to answer and there is no magic formula that says we should invest say 13% in basic research and 87% applied. I say we should let brilliant young physicists, and biologists, and archeologists, and geologists, and paleontologists, and astronomers study what interests them first and foremost and I can guarantee that much of those interests will fall under the basic research category. So I don’t think there is a set number of how much investment in basic versus applied but I do feel in my experience basic research is greatly undervalued.
The fact is people still today advocate for basic research devoid of any requirement for either immediate or foreseeable utility. This isn’t simply a problem we’ve solved entirely by speed and volume. There’s a great documentary on the LHC and the Higgs boson, which I’m sure you are familiar with. One of the researchers on that project was asked about the utility of this research and he said basically there isn’t any and channeled his inner Abraham Flexner by pointing out that when radio waves were discovered they weren’t called radio waves because there were no radios.
Of course basic research is important. I can’t imagine a cogent argument that says it’s not and all research should have a stated application in mind.
That’s a good distinction.
It isn’t that basic science has no utility, but it doesn’t usually have immediate and foreseeable utility to society. However, part of the argument for society to support basic science is that the unforeseeable utility to society can be quite large, even if it is not immediate.
Would you agree with this?
I suppose though that I also think science is also an intrinsic good, independent of utility to society.
You seem to be conflating two issues here. This is leading to a lot of confusion.
The utilitarian value of Science : everybody here agrees that the knowledge gained through science is very useful. This in itself makes science very very valuable.
The intrinsic value of using the scientific method to investigate nature and gain knowledge for it’s own sake.
I have pointed out why theists values both of the above. That applies to me too.The question is why a nontheist would find an intrinsic worth in option 2. I can think of two reasons- Both psychological
The act of acquiring knowledge through the scientific method gives a sense of psychological fulfillment. This can be due to satisfying ones curiosity, a sense of accomplishment at doing a job well etc(This can apply to non theists too in addition to their theistic motivations).
The scientific community provides positive reinforcement when a person uses the scientific method to increase knowledge irrespective of whether it’s useful or not.
Interestingly enough, the above is also applicable to theists/religious people.
Is this am answer to your question?
You’re not following the general course of the discussion. My points against your secular argument for pure science were just devil’s advocate, to show that they’re not airtight.
Of course they would be useless. For that post I’m arguing from a secular point. So this point doesn’t make sense.
No, you’re glossing over important distinctions. Your original point was basically that Christian scientists who believe in certain miracles or in the integration of science and faith are never genuinely interested in basic science, only whatever science that supports their theological agenda.
I offered up a counter argument that certain kinds of Christians may have an extra motivation to pursue basic science compared to non-theistic scientists, and that the secular reasons given for pursuing basic science are not very strong.
My overall point is that if you really care about basic science then you should not attack all Christians who care about the integration of science and faith, because sometimes they may benefit basic science as well.
But this is a looming question facing particle physicists now. Yes, the LHC and Higgs was nice. But is there enough justification to spend $100 billion dollars more on a larger version, just for the sake of basic science? The World Doesn't Need a New Gigantic Particle Collider | Scientific American
I think it’s wrong to view what I’m doing as any sort of “attack” on anyone. I’m questioning how some people are deciding to “integrate” science and faith and saying that integration may have more value to individual theists than to science as a whole. I think it’s overly defensive to characterize every critique as an “attack”.
All I expect from other scientists is honesty and a commitment to following the data. Whatever motivates them is their business and their business alone. Even more, I think its great that others can find meaning and fulfillment in their work even if their source of inspiration is different than mine.