Intellectual discussion thread - the motives of scientists

[concerned_chatter]

Science and technology provide the most important examples of surrogate activities in modern society. Some scientists claim that they are motivated by “curiosity” or by a desire to “benefit humanity.” But it is easy to see that neither of these can be the principal motive of most scientists. As for “curiosity,” that notion is simply absurd. Most scientists work on highly specialized problems that are not the object of any normal curiosity. For example, is an astronomer, a mathematician or an entomologist curious about the properties of isopropyltrimethylmethane? Of course not. Only a chemist is curious about such a thing, and he is curious about it only because chemistry is his surrogate activity. Is the chemist curious about the appropriate classification of a new species of beetle? No. That question is of interest only to the entomologist, and he is interested in it only because entomology is his surrogate activity. If the chemist and the entomologist had to exert themselves seriously to obtain the physical necessities, and if that effort exercised their abilities in an interesting way but in some nonscientific pursuit, then they wouldn’t give a damn about isopropyltrimethylmethane or the classification of beetles. Suppose that lack of funds for postgraduate education had led the chemist to become an insurance broker instead of a chemist. In that case he would have been very interested in insurance matters but would have cared nothing about isopropyltrimethylmethane. In any case it is not normal to put into the satisfaction of mere curiosity the amount of time and effort that scientists put into their work. The “curiosity” explanation for the scientists’ motive just doesn’t stand up.

The “benefit of humanity” explanation doesn’t work any better. Some scientific work has no conceivable relation to the welfare of the human race most of archaeology or comparative linguistics for example. Some other areas of science present obviously dangerous possibilities. Yet scientists in these areas are just as enthusiastic about their work as those who develop vaccines or study air pollution. Consider the case of Dr. Edward Teller, who had an obvious emotional involvement in promoting nuclear power plants. Did this involvement stem from a desire to benefit humanity? If so, then why didn’t Dr. Teller get emotional about other “humanitarian” causes? If he was such a humanitarian then why did he help to develop the H-bomb? As with many other scientific achievements, it is very much open to question whether nuclear power plants actually do benefit humanity. Does the cheap electricity outweigh the accumulating waste and the risk of accidents? Dr. Teller saw only one side of the question. Clearly his emotional involvement with nuclear power arose not from a desire to “benefit humanity” but from a personal fulfillment he got from his work and from seeing it put to practical use.

 

[TheSingularity]

Science and technology provide the most important examples of surrogate activities in modern society. Some scientists claim that they are motivated by “curiosity” or by a desire to “benefit humanity.” But it is easy to see that neither of these can be the principal motive of most scientists. As for “curiosity,” that notion is simply absurd. Most scientists work on highly specialized problems that are not the object of any normal curiosity. For example, is an astronomer, a mathematician or an entomologist curious about the properties of isopropyltrimethylmethane? Of course not. Only a chemist is curious about such a thing, and he is curious about it only because chemistry is his surrogate activity. Is the chemist curious about the appropriate classification of a new species of beetle? No. That question is of interest only to the entomologist, and he is interested in it only because entomology is his surrogate activity. If the chemist and the entomologist had to exert themselves seriously to obtain the physical necessities, and if that effort exercised their abilities in an interesting way but in some nonscientific pursuit, then they wouldn’t give a damn about isopropyltrimethylmethane or the classification of beetles. Suppose that lack of funds for postgraduate education had led the chemist to become an insurance broker instead of a chemist. In that case he would have been very interested in insurance matters but would have cared nothing about isopropyltrimethylmethane. In any case it is not normal to put into the satisfaction of mere curiosity the amount of time and effort that scientists put into their work. The “curiosity” explanation for the scientists’ motive just doesn’t stand up.

The “benefit of humanity” explanation doesn’t work any better. Some scientific work has no conceivable relation to the welfare of the human race most of archaeology or comparative linguistics for example. Some other areas of science present obviously dangerous possibilities. Yet scientists in these areas are just as enthusiastic about their work as those who develop vaccines or study air pollution. Consider the case of Dr. Edward Teller, who had an obvious emotional involvement in promoting nuclear power plants. Did this involvement stem from a desire to benefit humanity? If so, then why didn’t Dr. Teller get emotional about other “humanitarian” causes? If he was such a humanitarian then why did he help to develop the H-bomb? As with many other scientific achievements, it is very much open to question whether nuclear power plants actually do benefit humanity. Does the cheap electricity outweigh the accumulating waste and the risk of accidents? Dr. Teller saw only one side of the question. Clearly his emotional involvement with nuclear power arose not from a desire to “benefit humanity” but from a personal fulfillment he got from his work and from seeing it put to practical use.

I don't think scientists pursue their field because of curiosity or "benefeting humanity" at all.

According to Aristotle, every human being ultimately seeks happiness. Here, "happiness" is not some temporary gratification achieved by a can of beer, but is the totality of one's satisfaction with his/her life. According to Aristotle, happiness is the perfection of human nature. Since man is a rational animal, human happiness depends on the exercise of his reason. Moreover, he posits that happiness depends on acquiring a moral character, where one displays the virtues of courage, generosity, justice, friendship, and citizenship in one’s life. These virtues involve striking a balance or “mean” between an excess and a deficiency. Finally, happiness requires intellectual contemplation, for this is the ultimate realization of our rational capacities.

Based upon Aristotle's theory, I would say that scientists seek scientific knowledge because they want to be happy and science falls under 'intellectual contemplation.' Why they don't seek mathematics, law, or philosophy is another matter. It is my personal belief that not everyone is disposed towards a particular field of knowledge. They don't pursue certain fields because they fear that they might fail in it. Seemingly contrary to our being as rational beings, rigorous reasoning (the formal use of logic) is not for everyone. In this vein, I believe the British mathematician G.H. Hardy was correct in stating that pure mathematics is pursuit of truth in the highest order. However, it could be argued that philosophy is above pure mathematics in that matter.

So why don't people pursue basic fields of knowledge, such as philosophy and mathematics? I blame this damned world. The world is focused so much on money-making that no one has time to appreciate "useless" fields like pure mathematics. A money-making world implies an application-based world. Therefore, the world recognizes the need for mathematics, but in an a lesser form - an applied form. This is even reflected in the school textbooks. For example, my HS maths textbook always included "interesting" facts about the application of maths to the "real" world. If mathematics is presented as nothing more than a tool, then the majority will never appreciate mathematics as eternal truth. Ditto for philosophy except that philosophy is never even introduced to students.

I hate when college applicants write that they want to learn this or that to help humanity. Stop lying to yourself: you want learn this or that because you seek happiness....

 

[France25]

I don't think scientists pursue their field because of curiosity or "benefeting humanity" at all.

According to Aristotle, every human being ultimately seeks happiness. Here, "happiness" is not some temporary gratification achieved by a can of beer, but is the totality of one's satisfaction with his/her life. According to Aristotle, happiness is the perfection of human nature. Since man is a rational animal, human happiness depends on the exercise of his reason. Moreover, he posits that happiness depends on acquiring a moral character, where one displays the virtues of courage, generosity, justice, friendship, and citizenship in one’s life. These virtues involve striking a balance or “mean” between an excess and a deficiency. Finally, happiness requires intellectual contemplation, for this is the ultimate realization of our rational capacities.

Based upon Aristotle's theory, I would say that scientists seek scientific knowledge because they want to be happy and science falls under 'intellectual contemplation.' Why they don't seek mathematics, law, or philosophy is another matter. It is my personal belief that not everyone is disposed towards a particular field of knowledge. They don't pursue certain fields because they fear that they might fail in it. Seemingly contrary to our being as rational beings, rigorous reasoning (the formal use of logic) is not for everyone. In this vein, I believe the British mathematician G.H. Hardy was correct in stating that pure mathematics is pursuit of truth in the highest order. However, it could be argued that philosophy is above pure mathematics in that matter.

So why don't people pursue basic fields of knowledge, such as philosophy and mathematics? I blame this damned world. The world is focused so much on money-making that no one has time to appreciate "useless" fields like pure mathematics. A money-making world implies an application-based world. Therefore, the world recognizes the need for mathematics, but in an a lesser form - an applied form. This is even reflected in the school textbooks. For example, my HS maths textbook always included "interesting" facts about the application of maths to the "real" world. If mathematics is presented as nothing more than a tool, then the majority will never appreciate mathematics as eternal truth. Ditto for philosophy except that philosophy is never even introduced to students.

I hate when college applicants write that they want to learn this or that to help humanity. Stop lying to yourself: you want learn this or that because you seek happiness....

A very interesting opinion. A little philosophical, but in many ways I can agree with you.

 

[FosterWest]

Science and technology provide the most important examples of surrogate activities in modern society. Some scientists claim that they are motivated by “curiosity” or by a desire to “benefit humanity.” But it is easy to see that neither of these can be the principal motive of most scientists. As for “curiosity,” that notion is simply absurd. Most scientists work on highly specialized problems that are not the object of any normal curiosity. For example, is an astronomer, a mathematician or an entomologist curious about the properties of isopropyltrimethylmethane? Of course not. Only a chemist is curious about such a thing, and he is curious about it only because chemistry is his surrogate activity. Is the chemist curious about the appropriate classification of a new species of beetle? No. That question is of interest only to the entomologist, and he is interested in it only because entomology is his surrogate activity. If the chemist and the entomologist had to exert themselves seriously to obtain the physical necessities, and if that effort exercised their abilities in an interesting way but in some nonscientific pursuit, then they wouldn’t give a damn about isopropyltrimethylmethane or the classification of beetles. Suppose that lack of funds for postgraduate education had led the chemist to become an insurance broker instead of a chemist. In that case he would have been very interested in insurance matters but would have cared nothing about isopropyltrimethylmethane. In any case it is not normal to put into the satisfaction of mere curiosity the amount of time and effort that scientists put into their work. The “curiosity” explanation for the scientists’ motive just doesn’t stand up.

The “benefit of humanity” explanation doesn’t work any better. Some scientific work has no conceivable relation to the welfare of the human race most of archaeology or comparative linguistics for example. Some other areas of science present obviously dangerous possibilities. Yet scientists in these areas are just as enthusiastic about their work as those who develop vaccines or study air pollution. Consider the case of Dr. Edward Teller, who had an obvious emotional involvement in promoting nuclear power plants. Did this involvement stem from a desire to benefit humanity? If so, then why didn’t Dr. Teller get emotional about other “humanitarian” causes? If he was such a humanitarian then why did he help to develop the H-bomb? As with many other scientific achievements, it is very much open to question whether nuclear power plants actually do benefit humanity. Does the cheap electricity outweigh the accumulating waste and the risk of accidents? Dr. Teller saw only one side of the question. Clearly his emotional involvement with nuclear power arose not from a desire to “benefit humanity” but from a personal fulfillment he got from his work and from seeing it put to practical use.

Agree with you! But I know many scientists for whom their work is a calling. For example, I very often use CustomWriting service that employs sharp professional writers. This is a real salvation for me. After all, I don’t have special skills to write quality content. And with the help of this service I can be confident in the result.