Whats the point of modern science?

[Chas]

In fact, OP, to give you an opportunity to prove that you're no trolling, please define adequately what the difference is between 'modern science' and (by definition) not-modern science, and what the benefits of the latter have been that you feel trump the (imagined?) benefits of the former.

Thanks.

Well, the new sciences are the ones that deal with space-time. The old ones deal with more terrestrial things like biology and so on. The benefits of geology and biology and such are really good, practical stuff. I feel that the new sciences are a bit of a waste because there hasn't been, for example, a new discovery in particle physics for something like 40 years.

Higgs boson.

[Angrboda]

Well, the new sciences are the ones that deal with space-time. The old ones deal with more terrestrial things like biology and so on. The benefits of geology and biology and such are really good, practical stuff. I feel that the new sciences are a bit of a waste because there hasn't been, for example, a new discovery in particle physics for something like 40 years.

The Higgs Boson was discovered on July 4, 2012. It is one of the most important discoveries in particle physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

[Jackalope]

there hasn't been, for example, a new discovery in particle physics for something like 40 years.

This sounded like bullshit to me, and about 10 seconds with Google confirmed it:

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of...iscoveries

1974: J/ψ meson discovered by groups headed by Burton Richter and Samuel Ting, demonstrating the existence of the charm quark[23][24] (proposed by James Bjorken and Sheldon Lee Glashow in 1964[25])
1975: Tau discovered by a group headed by Martin Perl[26]
1977: Upsilon meson discovered at Fermilab, demonstrating the existence of the bottom quark[27] (proposed by Kobayashi and Maskawa in 1973)
1979: Gluon observed indirectly in three jet events at DESY[28]
1983: W and Z bosons discovered by Carlo Rubbia, Simon van der Meer, and the CERN UA1 collaboration[29][30] (predicted in detail by Sheldon Glashow, Abdus Salam, and Steven Weinberg)
1995: Top quark discovered at Fermilab[31][32]
1995: Antihydrogen produced and measured by the LEAR experiment at CERN[33]
2000: Tau neutrino first observed directly at Fermilab[34]
2011: Antihelium-4 produced and measured by the STAR detector; the first particle to be discovered by the experiment
2012: A particle exhibiting most of the predicted characteristics of the Higgs boson discovered by researchers conducting the Compact Muon Solenoid and ATLAS experiments at CERN's Large Hadron Collider[35]

[LostLocke]

Here's a nice little snip from the wiki page on the Higgs boson involving general real world uses for science:

"As yet, there are no known immediate technological benefits of finding the Higgs particle. However, observers in both media and science point out that when fundamental discoveries are made about our world, their practical uses can take decades to emerge, but are often world-changing when they do.[41][42][43] A common pattern for fundamental discoveries is for practical applications to follow later, once the discovery has been explored further, at which point they become the basis for social change and new technologies.

For example, in the first half of the 20th century it was not expected that quantum mechanics would make possible transistors and microchips, mobile phones and computers, lasers and M.R.I. scanners.[44] Radio waves were described by their co-discoverer in 1888 as "an interesting laboratory experiment" with "no useful purpose" whatsoever,[45] and are now used in innumerable ways (radar, weather prediction, medicine, television, wireless computing and emergency response), positrons are used in hospital tomography scans, and special and general relativity which explain black holes also enable satellite-based GPS and satellite navigation ("satnav").[44] Electric power generation and transmission, motors, and lighting, all stemmed from previous theoretical work on electricity and magnetism; air conditioning and refrigeration resulted from thermodynamics. It is impossible to predict how seemingly esoteric knowledge may affect society in the future.[41][43]"

That might give you a few ideas as to whether modern research into these types of things is 'worth it'

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Also, isn't the knowledge incredible in itself? People like to claim that science doesn't have the answers to everything. At the same time claiming that if discoveries do not have applications yet, they are of no value. Well which is it? Can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Sejanus]

"Whats the point of modern science?" by The_Thinking_Theist. Who's really surprised?

[The_Thinking_Theist]

Well, the new sciences are the ones that deal with space-time. The old ones deal with more terrestrial things like biology and so on. The benefits of geology and biology and such are really good, practical stuff. I feel that the new sciences are a bit of a waste because there hasn't been, for example, a new discovery in particle physics for something like 40 years.

Higgs boson.

That's particle physics?

---

"Whats the point of modern science?" by The_Thinking_Theist. Who's really surprised?

Yer mam.

[Sejanus]

The Higgs Boson is an excitation from the Higgs field. So yes, the Higgs Boson particle would come under particle physics.

[The_Thinking_Theist]

The Higgs Boson is an excitation from the Higgs field. So yes, the Higgs Boson particle would come under particle physics.

Thanks.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

In fact, OP, to give you an opportunity to prove that you're no trolling, please define adequately what the difference is between 'modern science' and (by definition) not-modern science, and what the benefits of the latter have been that you feel trump the (imagined?) benefits of the former.

Thanks.

Well, the new sciences are the ones that deal with space-time. The old ones deal with more terrestrial things like biology and so on. The benefits of geology and biology and such are really good, practical stuff. I feel that the new sciences are a bit of a waste because there hasn't been, for example, a new discovery in particle physics for something like 40 years.

I find your definition inadequate, as well as wrong regarding the particle physics point, as others have pointed out.

When did old become new, and when did useful become not useful? Did you have any response to my point regarding the discovery of penicillin and the decades it took to take something seemingly nonsensical to revolutionary?

You appear to advocate the position that if something isn't immediately useful then it's irrelevant, despite the technological or intellectual limits that govern how 'useful' something is at a given point in time.

I find that to be highly illogical, and also rather stupid, if you don't mind me saying.