The definitive answer to why we must invest in pure science research

The answer to why we spend pure scientific research and space exploration is obvious to me, but it is directly related to the way in which we invest these (very limited) dollars I often complain about being there. . Physicist David Kaplan has perfect answers to these complaints

In the video, Kaplan answered questions of the economist and asked what the harvest of the Higgs particles we found in the large hasron coloner was.

Questions for economists are "What are the economic benefits of performing such experiments and the experience gained from this experiment?" This is a very simple answer.

When radio waves are found, it is not called radio waves because there is no radio wave. They turned out to be some type of radiation

The basic science that brings about a great breakthrough need to happen at a level you do not ask "What is economic benefit?" You ask, "We do not know what, where will we make progress?"

The truth is that every scientific discovery in the history of mankind has a measurable impact directly on technology, even though it is the most stupid and harmless. From theoretical physics research to astronomy, space exploration, biology, geology to paleontology. All theories, all discoveries, all knowledge will have a major influence on our lives, or ultimately lead to a path leading to human development.

In other words, pure science brings huge economic benefits, but even Kaplan's last remarks are not useful even for those benefits and even technological advances. And although this is not important, it affects our personal and coexisting cores.

At the end of particle heat - this clip comes from a must-see movie - another physicist is contemplating what makes us human:

Why do humans do science, and why do they want to do art? What is not the most important for us to survive is to make us human.

Without science, humans are very helpless. Science is the understanding of our universe. It is natural that there are people to think. If we do not have science, that means we are purely instinctive. There is no definition of "life" as human race. The grace of science is wonderful. But our wisdom is not perfect and we may do something bad. Therefore, science may be a curse. I changed an airliner to a fighter plane. The camera keeps remembering the spy. Phones used for dialogue are also used to bully children and blow up trains. Our greed, hatred, fear, evil, and stupidity brings terrible use to what our scientific knowledge creates. Spiderman said, "As we all know," to take great responsibility with great power. "

As an inscription, you can borrow the conclusion of "pure science politics" by Daniel Greenberg. "Is there something" socially responsible "like science? For the time being, most residents of the purely scientific community will doubt this, but in recent years more and more scientists have questioned science. Work done on this comfortable concept is irresponsible. " I firmly deny that neutrality is effective. The reason why they refused to accept it was not entirely clear.

Neil deGrasse Tyson presents a persuasive discussion on "pure" scientific investment. In a recent "Guardian Science Weekly" podcast, he compiled several sentences to make 30 minutes answer of what he said. In short, medical research does not offer you MRI scanners or X-rays. The research of the oven did not give you a microwave oven. We can not always predict what we find and we can not predict that application. Therefore, even if its application is not clear, we should pursue high goals and always support (and fund) curiosity.