[ 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.

/sci/ - Science & Math

Search:


View post   

>> No.4326547 [View]
File: 10 KB, 334x351, newton.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4326547

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 problem 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.

>> No.4326523 [DELETED]  [View]
File: 10 KB, 334x351, newton.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4326523

> 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 problem 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.
tbc.

>> No.2426490 [View]
File: 10 KB, 334x351, newton.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2426490

.>>2426480

>> No.2317767 [View]
File: 10 KB, 334x351, newton.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2317767

Hey guys. I would like to tech myself calculus. Is there a website, book, or just about anything I can use to learn calculus without being a math pro? It has to be easy to understand, you dig?

Pic related.

>> No.2084395 [View]
File: 10 KB, 334x351, newton.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2084395

Quantities, and also ratios of quantities, which in any finite time constantly tend to equality, and which before the end of that time approach so close to one another that their difference is less than any given quantity, become ultimately equal.

If you deny this, let them become ultimately unequal and let their ultimate difference be D. Then they cannot approach so close to equality that their difference is less than the given difference D, contrary to the hypothesis.

>> No.2055978 [View]
File: 10 KB, 334x351, newton[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2055978

>OVER 88.96443 NEWTONS OF PUSSY AND ASS

>> No.1821167 [View]
File: 10 KB, 334x351, newton.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1821167

If I press an object with mass against a spring so that the spring is compressed, then release the object, does the energy E=0.5kx^2 transfer directly to the object as kinetic energy?

>> No.1335429 [View]
File: 10 KB, 334x351, newton.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1335429

>> No.1253543 [View]
File: 10 KB, 334x351, newton.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1253543

Newton here. Can you plz show me how to make lead into gold? I've been trying for, like, fuckin ever!!

>> No.1209760 [View]
File: 10 KB, 334x351, 20071225_1_1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1209760

Is Newton overrated??

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]