/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5380097]

If you're rich then why read non-fiction books? Science isn't as fun as consuming high art all day, or even video games. Drinking whisky etc.

I say this because I want to be convinced otherwise, I fail to see the fun in science and feel most people only get into it because they realise they are relatively smart and can make money from it. The people who enjoy it in the same way most people enjoy a play for example, are a minority.

[Anonymous No.5380104]

You are either absolutely batshit stupid, or making a fucking gritty shitpost. Fuck you for your ignorance.

[Anonymous No.5380109]

>>5380104
well probably the former, you're right that I phrased the question badly. let's try again:

assuming a kind of philosophical hedonism is the truth of life, what value is science to the rich? It's not entertaining in the same way a play or symphony is. So is it only for people who want to make money?

[Anonymous No.5380115]

Well, I am sorry you feel that way.
For people like me, science is beautiful. I am just filled with wonder and awe when I think about nature scientifically. For me, science is what a play or a painting or a song is for others. Of course, you can't understand this, the same way I can't understand why anyone would waste their time looking at some oil splattered on a canvas or listening to someone rub horsehair on metal strings or consuming socially acceptable poison or stare at a screen while moving a lever back and forth and pressing various buttons in various orders...

I think you get the point I'm making here.

Enjoyment is a subjective thing, and people have their own reasons for enjoying art and/or science.

In that sense, it does take a special sort of mindset to find science enjoyable, but maybe that's not because science is inherently unenjoyable but rather because society makes it seem unenjoyable.

In school, science is just memorizing facts and being tested.
In social situations, scientists and intellectuals are perceived as uncool.

It's very easy to find science boring due to the environment you are raised in.

But if you think about the inherent beauty of nature and how science provides us with an understanding of how things work, and how everything follows a few simple fundamental laws, and everything is related...when you start trying to wrap your mind around that, ignoring completely what society wants you to think, I think you'll find science pretty cool too.

[Ramblings No.5380117]

>>5380104
To be truthful, science really isn't as fun as the movies suggest. True science isn't, anyway.

I love mathematics because there still exists an intense joy when I discover new concepts or prove certain things.

OP, people don't derive 'fun' out of science like they do when they play video games or when they're watching a symphony; they enjoy it because of the outcome. They enjoy the enlightenment, the learning, etc. Most of the time, the process behind actual science is kind of boring. It's one of the main reasons why I quit Biology. Doing research in a fucking lab for 5+ hrs actually turned me off. I couldn't stand being in a lab coat for much longer.

[Anonymous No.5380119]

>>5380109
That is certainly a better phrasing. But I think when it comes down to it, it's a matter of passion. A real dyed in the wool scientist, regardless of how much money they have , will continue to explore their interests in their field of choice. I think its a lot like musicians. I know a few and None of them are ever going to get big, and they know it. but they continue to make new, original songs and tunes just because its their passion.

[Anonymous No.5380122]

>>5380109
Also, people who want to make money won't turn to science. Science isn't where the money is.

Computer scientists and doctors aren't doing science, they're applying small, uninteresting parts of it and serving humanity's needs and wants.

Researchers and professors are doing the real science and they get paid shit.

[Anonymous No.5380164]

You might derive subjective pleasure from the pursuit of knowledge.

You could ask why one would pursue science if they were not rich. There's little money to be made and there are plenty of much easier jobs that net you the same money and give you access to cheaper/better forms of entertainment (in your eyes).

[Anonymous No.5380929]

>>5380097
Because that's not a real pony, Johnny. Little slow on the uptake.

[Anonymous No.5380961]

Most science prior to the 20th century done by Aristocrats or members of otherwise rich families. Darwin didn't get rich writing about finches, he was born in a rich family. Surely all those great men have found some interest in their research.

But of course, the converse isn't true: historically, most rich people have *not* done science.

Really, this just means that some people enjoy science and some don't. There's nothing more to that.

[Anonymous No.5380993]

I agree that people who don't have a connection to any technical role probably will get no use out of reading jargon-heavy technical books intended for reference by practicing professionals.

However, there are a lot of softer science books which are intended for a general audience which are about as interesting as most of the history/economics for layman type stuff. (I don't intend for layman to be a synonym for pleb here. I mean it as giving you a condensed, readable version of recent advances and what they imply for everyone.)

>i fail to see the fun in science

Probably the only reason why I chose science over humanities is because there is a lot of subjectivity in humanities which I couldn't stand. Science gives you an absolute description of how a system works in its simplest form which allows you to remove all subjectivity from the debate.