http://www.panix.com/~clays/Una/una3.html

THE MOTIVES OF SCIENTISTS
87. Science and technology provide the most important examples of surrogate activities. Some scientists claim that they are
motivated by "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 couldn't giver 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.

88. 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 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.

89. The same is true of scientists generally. With possible rare exceptions, their motive is neither curiosity nor a desire
to benefit humanity but the need to go through the power process: to have a goal (a scientific problem to solve), to make an
effort (research) and to attain the goal (solution of the problem.) Science is a surrogate activity because scientists work
mainly for the fulfillment they get out of the work itself.

90. Of course, it's not that simple. Other motives do play a role for many scientists. Money and status for example. Some
scientists may be persons of the type who have an insatiable drive for status (see paragraph 79) and this may provide much of
the motivation for their work. No doubt the majority of scientists, like the majority of the general population, are more or
less susceptible to advertising and marketing techniques and need money to satisfy their craving for goods and services. Thus
science is not a PURE surrogate activity. But it is in large part a surrogate activity.

91. Also, science and technology constitute a mass power movement, and many scientists gratify their need for power through
identification with this mass movement (see paragraph 83).

92. Thus science marches on blindly, without regard to the real welfare of the human race or to any other standard, obedient
only to the psychological needs of the scientists and of the government officials and corporation executives who provide the
funds for research.


=========================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=========================

Oh, no. Another schizophrenic.
Iris,
Central NY, Zone 5a, Sunset Zone 40
"If we see light at the end of the tunnel, It's the light of the oncoming
train."
Robert Lowell (1917-1977)

David James Polewka wrote:
[snip]

THE MOTIVES OF SCIENTISTS
87. Science and technology provide the most important examples of surrogate activities.
[snip]

http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg

The mindless troll has found a compadre. If you don't like
technology, ass, don't use it. Sure as Hell don't bother those of us
who are the high priests of it. We are busy creating the future you
so abhor - including smoother, softer, silkier, drier armpits for our
ladies. You got a problem with that, bub? Go marry a European if you
can stand the smell.

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
Do something naughty to physics.

Uncle Al says, "The inevitability of scientific socialism is queued up
with controlled thermonuclear fusion, christ's return, and honest
government."

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

David James Polewka wrote:
[snip]

THE MOTIVES OF SCIENTISTS
87. Science and technology provide the most important examples of surrogate activities.
[snip]

http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg

The mindless troll has found a compadre. If you don't like
technology, ass, don't use it. Sure as Hell don't bother those of us
who are the high priests of it. We are busy creating the future you
so abhor - including smoother, softer, silkier, drier armpits for our
ladies. You got a problem with that, bub? Go marry a European if you
can stand the smell.

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
Do something naughty to physics.

Uncle Al says, "The inevitability of scientific socialism is queued up
with controlled thermonuclear fusion, christ's return, and honest
government."

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

Uncle Al wrote:

David James Polewka wrote:
[snip]

THE MOTIVES OF SCIENTISTS
87. Science and technology provide the most important examples of surrogate activities.
[snip]

The mindless troll has found a compadre. If you don't like
technology, ass, don't use it. Sure as Hell don't bother those of us
who are the high priests of it. We are busy creating the future you
so abhor - including smoother, softer, silkier, drier armpits for our
ladies. You got a problem with that, bub? Go marry a European if you
can stand the smell.

Unabomber Manifesto -- anagram
************************************
I fear no Mensa mot, Bub!
************************************


=========================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=========================

"David James Polewka" wrote in message
...
http://www.panix.com/~clays/Una/una3.html

THE MOTIVES OF SCIENTISTS
87. Science and technology provide the most important examples of
surrogate activities. Some scientists claim that they are
motivated by "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 couldn't giver 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.

David,

This fellow is a comedian. How interesting that he feels competent to
rule on what is "normal".

FWIW, pretty much everyone I know who has a very narrow scientific focus
has a range of curiousity and excitement about other areas. Hell, even
Gould was a Red Sox fan, and wrote on baseball.

Tom McDonald

snip more-of-the-same ramblings

Iris Cohen schreef
Oh, no. Another schizophrenic.

+ + +
I have put so many crossposters in my killfiles that such things don't come
through to me anymore.
PvR

"Thomas McDonald" wrote in message
...

"David James Polewka" wrote in
message
...
http://www.panix.com/~clays/Una/una3.html

THE MOTIVES OF SCIENTISTS
87. Science and technology provide the most important
examples of
surrogate activities. Some scientists claim that they are
motivated by "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 couldn't giver 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.

David,

This fellow is a comedian. How interesting that he
feels competent to
rule on what is "normal".

FWIW, pretty much everyone I know who has a very
narrow scientific focus
has a range of curiousity and excitement about other
areas. Hell, even
Gould was a Red Sox fan, and wrote on baseball.



Most scientists I know read things like Science News or
Science Digest, and have an avid interest at least in all
areas of science (and usually many other areas of learning
as well). Alas, we live in a world of specialization which
particularly rewards specialists, grant-wise.

I can't tell you how many times I've had a grant proposal
criticized on the grounds that it wasn't being submitted by
a recognized expert in the field in which the work was
proposed. That's fine, but this actually happened once in a
field my lab had invented, and in which there WERE no
experts working on the technique but me and a couple of my
team members! The reviewers seemed to think I should also be
expert in several related fields, even though I was the
inventor, and all those experts in related fields hadn't had
the idea in the first place. *******s. If you came up with a
genuinely new idea in science, you'll still get "peer
reviewed" for grants, even though in a very real sense, you
don't have any peers at that point. I've never seen a
reviewer with the humility to recognize that.

SBH

Uncle Al wrote:

We are busy creating the future you so abhor - including smoother, softer, silkier, drier armpits for our ladies. You got a problem with that, bub? Go marry a European if you can stand the smell.


Been to Europe lately?

Jon Miller

"Thomas McDonald" writes:

"David James Polewka" wrote in message
...
http://www.panix.com/~clays/Una/una3.html

THE MOTIVES OF SCIENTISTS
87. Science and technology provide the most important examples of
...snip...
and effort that scientists put into their work. The
"curiosity" explanation for the scientists' motive just doesn't stand up.

David,

This fellow is a comedian. How interesting that he feels competent to
rule on what is "normal".

FWIW, pretty much everyone I know who has a very narrow scientific focus
has a range of curiousity and excitement about other areas. Hell, even
Gould was a Red Sox fan, and wrote on baseball.

Tom McDonald

snip more-of-the-same ramblings
Gould was a Yankees fan. I remember reading something he wrote wrt to
Red Sox hitter Ted Williams. When the Sox played the Yanks, Williams was
The Enemy.

"Steve Harris" writes:

"Thomas McDonald" wrote in message
...

"David James Polewka" wrote in
message
...
http://www.panix.com/~clays/Una/una3.html

THE MOTIVES OF SCIENTISTS
...snip...
"curiosity" explanation for the scientists' motive just
doesn't stand up.

David,

This fellow is a comedian. How interesting that he
feels competent to
rule on what is "normal".

FWIW, pretty much everyone I know who has a very
narrow scientific focus
has a range of curiousity and excitement about other
areas. Hell, even
Gould was a Red Sox fan, and wrote on baseball.



Most scientists I know read things like Science News or
Science Digest, and have an avid interest at least in all
areas of science (and usually many other areas of learning
as well). Alas, we live in a world of specialization which
particularly rewards specialists, grant-wise.

...snip...

When Albert Einstein delivered a eulogy for his friend and fellow
scientist Max Planck, he said some people become scientists for
various reasons, as a way to compete, to achieve fame, but some,
including Planck, did it because they wanted to know and under-
stand the world.

Also, from an essay by Martin Rees at
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/rees03/rees_print.html:


It's good for us as researchers to address a wider public. It makes us
realize what the big questions are. What I mean by this is that in
science the right methodology is often to focus on a piece of the
problem which you think you can solve. It's only cranks who try to
solve the big problems at one go. If you ask a scientist what they're
doing, they won't say trying to cure cancer or trying to understand
the universe; they'll point at something very specific, progress is
made by solving bite-sized problems one at a time. But the
occupational risk for scientists is that even though that's the right
methodology, they sometimes lose sight of the big picture. Members of
a lay audience always ask the big questions, the important questions,
and that helps us to remember that our piecemeal efforts are only
worthwhile insofar as they're steps towards answering those big
questions.

"C. P. Weidling" wrote in message
...
Members of
a lay audience always ask the big questions, the important
questions,
and that helps us to remember that our piecemeal efforts
are only
worthwhile insofar as they're steps towards answering
those big
questions.


Actually, in my own field (biomedical research) you don't
need to rely on lay people to ask the big questions. The MDs
in the audience will do it, because they're always thinking
about how whatever it is you're doing can be usefully
applied to some real and pressing clinical problem.

My difficulties in biomedical research have been with the
PhDs. Most of who act, in their research and their thinking,
as though they and their families were immortal and
disease-proof.

SBH

C. P. Weidling wrote:

Gould was a Yankees fan.

Typical. Goddam Marxist.

-dlj.

Steve Harris wrote:

I can't tell you how many times I've had a grant proposal
criticized on the grounds that it wasn't being submitted by
a recognized expert in the field in which the work was
proposed. That's fine, but this actually happened once in a
field my lab had invented, and in which there WERE no
experts working on the technique but me and a couple of my
team members!

This would be your work in proactive treatments for
chronic, whole-body frostbite?

Mark Thorson wrote:
Steve Harris wrote:
I can't tell you how many times I've had a grant proposal
criticized on the grounds that it wasn't being submitted by
a recognized expert in the field in which the work was
proposed. That's fine, but this actually happened once in a
field my lab had invented, and in which there WERE no
experts working on the technique but me and a couple of my
team members!

This would be your work in proactive treatments for
chronic, whole-body frostbite?

Mark,

Didn't they get into trouble with the Human Subjects Experimentation
Ethics Board? Something to do with the subjects and the staff not
being adequately distinguished the one from the other?

-dlj.