[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 507 KB, 360x479, unaunca.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16526779 No.16526779 [Reply] [Original]

>87. Science and technology provide the most important examples of surrogate activities. 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.

Sorry Ted but this is complete bullshit. Curiosity is not a convincing motive because scientists are simply more curious that filthy casuals? And sure, they specialize but polymaths have always existed and continue to exist, just like highly knowledgeable laypeople that "become an insurance broker."

What utter tripe.

>> No.16526806

>>16526779
You're being very reddit OP

>> No.16526833

>>16526779
yeah, he sometimes resorts to vulgar psychologising, which sucks.

>> No.16526843

>>16526806
You're being very reddit newfag

>> No.16526846

His critique is that a lot of these academic pursuits are not of benefit to most except the scientists/academics/etc. It's just masturbation and either helps further one's ego or to continue getting grant money.

>> No.16526864

>>16526806
i agree it’s a bad critique but he is right there is nothing natural about that kind of curiosity

>> No.16526867

>he wouldn't do it out of curiosity therefore no one would

Yikes

>> No.16526877

>>16526779
>Sorry Ted but this is complete bullshit. Curiosity is not a convincing motive because scientists are simply more curious that filthy casuals? And sure, they specialize but polymaths have always existed and continue to exist, just like highly knowledgeable laypeople that "become an insurance broker."

I actually think he's more correct than you realize. I am doing a PhD, and let me tell you, research is guided far less by "I'm really curious about X" than "I think X will produce publishable findings". People get into a field usually because they are curious about the deep, fundamental questions of the field, but their actual work in the field barely touches this curiosity. Work on fundamental insights takes a long time and often isn't "fruitful" in the sense of producing a quarterly research paper.

>> No.16526887

>>16526779
true, those are bad examples.
the thing is science is still a surrogate for the purpose curiosity evolved for.
>more importantly, as long as you are interested, there is no value to whether the activity is surrogate or natural

>> No.16526971

>>16526877
Finishing up a PhD myself and I agree STEM nerds become victims to a weird "must publish" virus but I see curiosity in the form of sincere excitement for learning a new thing all the time.

>>16526887
>science is still a surrogate for the purpose curiosity evolved for.
Threat management?

>> No.16526987

>>16526779
Why doesn't he criticise religion if he cared about muh freedoms so much? Seems more like he was mad about the industrialists taking away the creek he was shitting in more than freedom being eroded

>> No.16526991

>>16526779
lmao what a pussy

>> No.16526997

>>16526806
Unibomber worship is peak redd*t pseudery

>> No.16527043

>>16526971
>I agree STEM nerds become victims to a weird "must publish" virus

This is a very strange way to describe it. Publications are literally an instrumental measure that universities use to determine who gets tenure and who gets thrown out. It's not some weird mind virus. It's an explicit mandate.

>> No.16527072

>>16526779

There's no such thing as being "more curious" that's the whole point of this
Once you get to the stage where you start studying something more seriously and devoting large amounts of time to it you can't call that curiosity any more
Curiosity implies a lack of intent or self control
I mean would you say any of the greatest philosophers throughout history were merely "more curious" about philosophy? No that's really just an insult to the work they did

>> No.16527122

>>16527072
philosophers and scientists were for the most part aristocrats with alot of free time to write. philosophy was a way for them to pass time.

modern science and philosophy is just a job essentially. you go into it to make money, so when the funding dries up you go work in a bank (or in a fancy coffee shop for the philosophy graduates). no scientist has a passion for his subject that he would live in the streets while doing equations with a stick in the sand

>> No.16527130

>>16527043
Sorry, I guess I'm implying it's a coercive and bum system.

>>16527072
>Curiosity implies a lack of intent or self control
I've never heard it put that way and I couldn't disagree more. I would indeed say philosophers are more curious. Nietzsche at least admits as much.

>> No.16527203

>>16527130

What do you mean you've never heard it put that way haven't you ever heard the phrase "curiosity killed the cat"?
And why do you think that is? Because the cat has no self control it can't help it's curious nature which occurs to it indiscriminately
To most people I would say this is the hallmark of curiosity it's spontaneous nature

>> No.16527221

>>16527203
That doesn't mean that curiosity implies lack of self control

>> No.16527269
File: 2.29 MB, 3200x2160, vnivtyuxlst21.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16527269

>>16527221
yes, but curiosity also will one day wake the elder gods who will devour us all

>> No.16527937

>>16526779
He is saying that they must be "curious" by necessity rather than by doing what they do for interest sake.

>> No.16527950

>>16526971
>I see curiosity in the form of sincere excitement for learning a new thing all the time
it's called passion

>> No.16527968

>>16527937
isn't the curiosity born out of lack of necessity actually? it's a surrogate activity in the sense that it alleviates boredom, not something that they need to do

>> No.16527977

>>16526779
He clearly got burned out on boundary function and is coping through projection.

Also saying that science is surrogate activity is becond bullshit. Science is necessary for competition in the real world, if your people suck at science you become a nigger enslaved by those better at science and technology.

>> No.16528376

>>16527977
in other words the science enslaves mankind. which is exactly his point

>> No.16528405

>>16527043
>Publications are literally an instrumental measure that universities use to determine who gets tenure and who gets thrown out. It's not some weird mind virus.

that's exactly why it is a virus you goober

>> No.16528414

>>16528376
no, ignorance does

>> No.16528416

>>16527977
defending the lords of the rat race on 4chan for free, is there anything more pathetic

>> No.16528421

>>16528416
being an anti-intellectual neet like you

>> No.16528437

>>16528414
ignorance of... science and technology, according to science and technology?

>> No.16528447

>>16528437
according to the natural laws that surround us

>> No.16528460

>it's not natural, therefore bad
that's a fallacy tho

>> No.16528475

>>16528460
stop being a nerd

>> No.16528613

>>16528376
Quit that goalpost hopping. Point of that quote was about science being a "surrogate activity", not about some hippie nonsense of "hurdur, technology enslaves people!". Making your kin stronger in order to defeat other tribes, is not surrogate activity, its one of the most basic aspects of (human) life.

>> No.16528656

>>16528405
Not OP, but that's out of their hands. You can have all the curiosity/passion in the world, but that'll still get you kicked out if you don't publish enough, even when your (slow) work has been of decent quality

>> No.16528691

>>16526779
>Curiosity is not a convincing motive because scientists are simply more curious that filthy casuals?
Correct.

>> No.16528694

>>16528460
If the philosopher has already established an argument for the natural previously, it isn't a fallacy. Which he does.

>> No.16528704

>>16528460
>ITSH A FALLASSHHHYYY

>> No.16528712

>>16526971
>Threat management?
I think that's actually an excellent way to summarize the scientist's "curiosity" merely being another surrogate activity, that they love the danger inherent in new breaches in science and technological innovation.

>> No.16528724

>>16528421
imagine being an """intellectual"""

>> No.16528726

>>16526779
>"isopropyltrimethylmethane"
Smh desu senpai

>> No.16528727

>>16528704
>don't you dare out my sloppy shit reasoning
No wonder this place is sliding into imbecility.

>> No.16528733

>>16526846
This. There is literally no incentive for anyone to fund slug sex research.

>> No.16528737
File: 13 KB, 350x350, questionquestion.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16528737

>>16526971
Curiosity is the will to investigate one's relationships with the world. The purpose is to evolve one's effective understanding of the world by discovering novel aspects about it. Questioning is the mutagenic aspect of human experience, while choice is the selective. What happens if you have a species with no mutation? The result is that it can't adapt if conditions change beyond what is currently survivable, and inevitably genetic variation is whittled away.

If you consider the question mark as a holy symbol, a symbol of conscious awareness and freedom itself, it will take you farther than any other.

>> No.16528742

>>16528727
>>don't you dare out my sloppy shit reasoning
You didn't do that actually, faggot. How does arguing from a naturalist perspective invalidate his argument based on naturalism? Your brain is polluted by reddit and /v/, and you're incapable of thinking for yourself in a meaningful capacity.

>> No.16528749

>>16528733
>Nothing matters except rearranging matter on or close to the Earth's surface.

>> No.16528763

>>16528613
>nature is just like the job market bro

kek. The mutt: the eternal slave. Everywhere he looks, his own dehumanizing way of life swims up to meet him. Backward, forward, up and around, there it is: nature has to be evil because I am and we are.

Neck yourself.

>> No.16528764

>>16528749
Hit a nerve slug sex researcher?

>> No.16528773

>>16526846
Chasticizing men for staring at stars? Typical female behaviour.

>> No.16528778

>>16527122
>no scientist has a passion for his subject that he would live in the streets while doing equations with a stick in the sand
Those exist. They are rare.

>> No.16528787

>>16528763
Wrong post, schizo.

>> No.16528798

>>16527122
>no scientist has a passion for his subject that he would live in the streets while doing equations with a stick in the sand

This is literally projection, you're speaking about yourself: you would never do this. You can't imagine others doing it. Yet, history has shown that such people have existed, who have sacrificed comfort for sincere inquiry.
You probably come from a shitty degenerate family, in a shitty degenerate community filled with incurious, materialistic idiots. you know only what you experience.

>> No.16528828

>>16528733
>This. There is literally no incentive for anyone to fund slug sex research.
Yes there is and the reason is that knowledge from something as random as slug sex research can have a huge impact on something completely unrelated. What if slug sperm turned out to be a pre-cursor to a cancer drug or something similar?
Most of the time it wont but something like 10% of research pays off, that's just the nature of the game. It's the epitome of mid-wit intelligence to assert that science is big brains confirming their grand theories when in reality it's a complete shit show of trial and error and standing on a mountain of accumulated knowledge over centuries and trying to contribute yourself.

>> No.16528831

>>16528828
You are replying to a troll, every word of yours is wasted.

>> No.16528870

>>16528831
>what is the very act of posting on 4channel.org

>> No.16528913

>>16528828
yes, exactly. for example maxell's math turned out to be extremely useful decades later. or for more modern example, the particle research in places like cern gave birth to cancer treatments with radiation. also, the cameras in most phones today were invented for use in astronomy research.
but there are two layers to science. one is the layer of the government, that finances science in hope of developments in technology and there is the layer of individuals, who can either do science out of interest/to kill boredom (i.e., ted's surrogate activities) or as a job

>> No.16528926

>>16528870
Truest post ever made on 4chan.

>> No.16529220

>>16526779
wow you're an idiot and you completely missed the point

>> No.16529306

>>16529220
Enlighten us anon

>> No.16529338

>>16528656
A million monkeys with a million typewriters will eventually make Shakespeare but nobody's going to do it

>> No.16529347

>>16528733
>oh wow that electrical wire is pushed by that magnet, who cares?

>> No.16529467
File: 226 KB, 2756x2067, 1599999315636.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16529467

>>16526779
the curiosity as the fundation of science is just a naive fundational myth, some kind of romulus and remus. the sacred fire. scientists need desperetaly say that to themselves to give sense to this monstruous field of knowledge they dont control and dont know exactly why they are in it or why it exists in first place.
you can´t have curiosity and a rigid way to look at things at the same time, you can´t have curiosity and an always-invincible method to alleviate that curiosity. people go to science because it have and it gives power. its power and control over things, thats the game they are playing.
they translate it as a truth and then they can go all happily merry go round saying its only a sane curiosity for the world and they end believing their lie. but the game was rigged from the start. they can escape from the narrow science lens. they will or just now have this kind of byzantine disquisitions while mundane people think they are investigating about utmost important things. the church will crumble and die like all churchs do.

>> No.16530316

>>16529467
what anime

>> No.16530696

Unamuno said this. Knowledge for knowledges sake is a made up cope. People are always searching for human finality in things and the "wherfore" rather than "why"

>> No.16530711

>>16528447
the natural laws which apparently tell us we have no agency, and furthermore tell us absolutely nothing about what we are to do with ourselves or treat one another. fuck off reddit, le science is not a fulfilling answer to every question, especially when the only mode of experience is a human one.