Whats the point of modern science?

[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.