Quote:
Originally Posted by presluc
If you want praise for the todays "hard thinkers" go to a sceintific convention or attend a fundraiser for sceintist.
The average hard workers are still waiting for an alterntive fuel sourse while oil companies take them to the cleaners at the pumps.
Average hard workers are pateintly waiting for a prevention to the aids virus.
Average hard workers want to hear somethiong besides "well we went to the moon" again or "well we went to the orbiting space station" again.
Or how about this one "this cellphone is a computer and also takes pictures".
|
You are a bit inprecise. We were talking about theories. Now you suddenly talk exclusively about practical applications. In how can a lack of practical applications be the fault of theoratical scienctists. Just to put that straight, you need both groups of scientists, the theoratical ones and the practical ones. The former lead to no real hard results for humans, but the latter can't make new practical inventions without the theoratical basis the former ones create.
We talked about theories before. Theories are the clear domain of theoratical scientists. You claimed they are doing not much more than producing hot steam and no mentionworty work on anything of importance is going on in the field of theories anymore.
I claimed this to be not the case and have listed a certain number of example from the top of my head.
I tell you something, the theoratical basis for fuel cells exists already for 100 years. It was just no need until a few decades ago to develope efficient applications. This is the case for many key technologies of the future, lets say the basic theories already exist for quite a while, in certain fields major new progress however made it possible to look at it from entirely new perspectives, or on the other side, new need created new demands for new applications.
But what do you demand from the practical scientists and ingeering teams? Miracels? Than you should better stick to religion. Because look how long it took when one means of transport replaced another one as dominant. How long did it take? Its not like those people would be lazy asses, its simply not that easy to make perfect motors for example. The Otto motor is now about 100 years old and still is getting improved. Not to talk about how long it took until it was an effecient tool really superior to the alternatives.
If you take the examples of hydrogen powered cars, we are currently in the stage when the first small serious cars are ready to enter the street (NOT prototypes, thats a major difference of at least 10 years). The basic problems of hydrogen power remains however: Its a secondary energy source, ie needs to be produced out of an primary one. Where to take that one from?
Again, if you expect miracels science should be not your field of interest.
Regarding AIDS. Do you have an idea of how sophisticated the HI virus is? Its such a tiny piece, scientists know hardly anything on earth better from an molecular level upwards than the HI virus. Thanks to their effort of the last twenty years. They would not have been in a lack of attempts to attack it, and in fact if you look at it openminded, science has succeeded already to come up with some weapons against AIDS. If applied it turns HIV from a death judgement into a chronical deases. Do you have an idea how hard this alone already was?
The HI virus is a highly mutant virus. Its in fact superior to most other viruses in terms of mutation rate. If you have problems to image what that means a comparision: Image you have to create a key that keeps opening a door with a lock that changes every day. Thats the task of the scientists and they deserve at least not to be target of hate for it.
Quote:
|
Do not lecture me on the great strides of sceintific progress.
|
Its actually you who lectures me how worthless scientists are nowadays. I simply try to oppose this lecture.
Quote:
If it was there it would be news, not hidden in some computer link on the backside of communications.
Any news media would leap at the chance to show something good on the news you know that, I know that.
|
No it doesnt show the good, it only shows the spectacular. Sometimes thats the same, but sometimes not.
Quote:
And yes it is my opinion that more sceintist have become too busy writing books or lecturing on a therory for money to get any sceintific work done.
Do I fear being left behind, Hell, I could take one step a day and catch up with the "wonders" of this century by the end of the month.
|
That might apply for a certain number of scientists in the practical field, I lack to see how it could be true that much for theoratical scientists like the ones at CERN. And even where it is true, scientists are often victims of the circumstances. I mean they need resources and money for their research. That doesn't mean they will betray their principles for it (most of them at least) but it means of course where the money is, will be more research. Not because scientists would be so bad people, but because noone could pay for the immense costs of scientific research alone anymore. At last the scientists.
Your last sentence simply disqualifies you. I would hope you take it back. Its simply a very severe insult towards anyone who has anything to do with scientific work.
PS:
I am neither an expert in working in a factory, nor in scientific research. But I have some personal experiences from both. I have worked a certain time in a factory, for a year in a hospital and now I am studying on an University. I have seen both sides I dare to say, and I would never ever discard the hard and honest work workers do in factories day in day out. Thats why it hurts me how you discredit so easily the work of all scientists. No they dont work that hard physically, but thats not their job either, they have other problems, their work is exhaustive as well often enough. And it isn't that easy to do it either, otherwise everyone could do it.