LHC Press release

[OrbitalDawn]

I think money would be better spent solving real problems rather than satisfy curiosity.

That's taking a very short-sighted view. I refer to what I said in my replies to Pietleeu. Scientists were doing theoretical work in centuries past that had no necessary practical application or use in that day and age, but that formed part of the larger web of knowledge and progress that came to be invaluable at a later stage. Reality is like a gigantic puzzle, and we're piecing our understanding of it together slowly but surely.

[DJ...]

I think money would be better spent solving real problems rather than satisfy curiosity.

So you're of the opinion that our endeavors to understand the quantum world have had no benefit to humanity at all?

To be honest, you're saying that scientific endeavor in itself is a waste, but let's just stick with quantum for now...

[Swa]

That's taking a very short-sighted view. I refer to what I said in my replies to Pietleeu. Scientists were doing theoretical work in centuries past that had no necessary practical application or use in that day and age, but that formed part of the larger web of knowledge and progress that came to be invaluable at a later stage. Reality is like a gigantic puzzle, and we're piecing our understanding of it together slowly but surely.

Somewhat misinterpreting what I said...

It's not the work being carried out but about the expenditure. I know of many scientists that did "theoretical" work in dark basements with almost no funding. So money could also be spent on saving the lives of people that will contribute to the web of knowledge. So it's not a short-sighted view to think of funding possibly hundreds of projects with the money currently used only for one. It's a question of where benefit can be foreseen there's a better chance of it. It's thinking ahead.

[zippy]

. It's thinking ahead.

we are making progress now. Science is about trying to understand the universe so that we can improve our lot. Its about finding solutions to problems and answers to questions.

If we stop spending money on research as long as people are starving, then we will never find any solutions and things will progressivly worse.

Its advances in science and technology that has made it possible for the human race to survive with scarcity of resources while population growth increases at the same time.

You are living in a fantasy land if you think cutting investment in research is going to mean more meny goes to the poor. Less money will go the poor, because economies will begin to stagnate and shortages will increase because processes will not keep pace with population growth.

Thinking ahead is understanding that we need to find answers. We need to find alternative energy sources. We need to find better ways of producing enough food. We need to improve our understanding of physics, biology etc. Current technology is not going to cut it 50 years from now. Some people are better at physics, some are better at medicine, some are better at farming. Utilise these skills in their areas of expertise. Too many people are short-sighted and overwhelmed by what goes on around them. They panic and throw their hands in the air. These people are part of the problem, and not the solution.

[OrbitalDawn]

Somewhat misinterpreting what I said...

It's not the work being carried out but about the expenditure. I know of many scientists that did "theoretical" work in dark basements with almost no funding. So money could also be spent on saving the lives of people that will contribute to the web of knowledge. So it's not a short-sighted view to think of funding possibly hundreds of projects with the money currently used only for one. It's a question of where benefit can be foreseen there's a better chance of it. It's thinking ahead.

In the larger scheme of things, the money being spent on this is a trivial amount. I think it would be a mistake to take money away from projects such as this to give to other important medical research. There are other areas where money could be diverted from.

I'm curious, do you consider the SKA project similarly unimportant?

[Swa]

we are making progress now. Science is about trying to understand the universe so that we can improve our lot. Its about finding solutions to problems and answers to questions.

If we stop spending money on research as long as people are starving, then we will never find any solutions and things will progressivly worse.

Its advances in science and technology that has made it possible for the human race to survive with scarcity of resources while population growth increases at the same time.

You are living in a fantasy land if you think cutting investment in research is going to mean more meny goes to the poor. Less money will go the poor, because economies will begin to stagnate and shortages will increase because processes will not keep pace with population growth.

Thinking ahead is understanding that we need to find answers. We need to find alternative energy sources. We need to find better ways of producing enough food. We need to improve our understanding of physics, biology etc. Current technology is not going to cut it 50 years from now. Some people are better at physics, some are better at medicine, some are better at farming. Utilise these skills in their areas of expertise. Too many people are short-sighted and overwhelmed by what goes on around them. They panic and throw their hands in the air. These people are part of the problem, and not the solution.

You are also misinterpreting what I said. Where did I mention just giving money to the poor? No I said it's about weighing up which research money is better spent on. I'm done with this. It's clearly a matter of some people being more humanitarian inclined and others more pure knowledge inclined. Both will overemphasise the importance of one and underemphasise the importance of the other.

[zippy]

You are also misinterpreting what I said. Where did I mention just giving money to the poor? No I said it's about weighing up which research money is better spent on. I'm done with this. It's clearly a matter of some people being more humanitarian inclined and others more pure knowledge inclined. Both will overemphasise the importance of one and underemphasise the importance of the other.

And you dont think this is done when the budget for CERN is discussed ? CERN money comes primarily from European taxpayers. Other countries also particpate. There are also private sponsors who usually contribute by donating equipement or software licences etc.

You are implying that no thought at all was given to money invested in LHC. That is completely incorrect. Funds for these projects are not just splashed out, they are debated, discussed, analysed. To a painful degree. Its EXTREMELY difficult to get funding for science from governments, because it has to be justified. These same govt's also provide billions in aid to the poor.

[Swa]

And you dont think this is done when the budget for CERN is discussed ? CERN money comes primarily from European taxpayers. Other countries also particpate. There are also private sponsors who usually contribute by donating equipement or software licences etc.

You are implying that no thought at all was given to money invested in LHC. That is completely incorrect. Funds for these projects are not just splashed out, they are debated, discussed, analysed. To a painful degree. Its EXTREMELY difficult to get funding for science from governments, because it has to be justified. These same govt's also provide billions in aid to the poor.

Not what I claimed at all. You keep misinterpreting what I say.

[DJ...]

So you're of the opinion that our endeavors to understand the quantum world have had no benefit to humanity at all?

To be honest, you're saying that scientific endeavor in itself is a waste, but let's just stick with quantum for now...

Perhaps you could drag yourself away from copy-pasting other websites for a second and answer my questions...