Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Motivation to study science

vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 9:36:00 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Yes I know science has done a lot for the world but what I mean by the title is why should I study it as in whats interesting about science.Science has always been my weak subject and history has always been more like a hobby than a subject.

So why do you or anyone else likes science by itself (meaning you mustn't include the results of science). I just find the entire thing very boring (with few exceptions).
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 5:07:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/6/2010 9:36:00 AM, vardas0antras wrote:
Yes I know science has done a lot for the world but what I mean by the title is why should I study it as in whats interesting about science.Science has always been my weak subject and history has always been more like a hobby than a subject.

So why do you or anyone else likes science by itself (meaning you mustn't include the results of science). I just find the entire thing very boring (with few exceptions).
Honestly, some people just find it interesting to know how the world works. Some people don't.

Just like some people like knowing useless historical trivia. That certainly doesn't interest me!
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 5:17:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I love good old fashion science. The new pseudo science is very boring though.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 9:27:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Some people find it interesting, some people don't.

I like science because it is the best way to explain things in a way that makes sense. It is the single most powerful subject of study you can dedicate yourself to, it's essentially the way to manipulate the universe. Knowing how the world works allows you to manipulate it better. There's a satisfaction to learning something and seeing it applied, and knowing that whenever you apply it, the outcome is the same.

I also agree with jharry. Pseudo-science is destructive to society. I dislike any field of science with no practical application.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 9:33:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Like the OP, I find things like history so much more interesting than science, but studying science is kinda important too. Of course, it depends on which field it is. Alot of things in fields such as astronomy seem like a waste of money and resources.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 9:49:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/6/2010 9:33:24 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Like the OP, I find things like history so much more interesting than science, but studying science is kinda important too. Of course, it depends on which field it is. Alot of things in fields such as astronomy seem like a waste of money and resources.

Satellites? GPS? For centuries, Astronomy has been used to measure the earth, to predict weather and climate, to navigate ships to trade in far-off lands. Not only that, but Astronomy has lead to the vast majority of high-tech equipment that we use for virtually every other field of science. We've expanded on physics monumentally with astronomy.

As for history, I think that History is a much greater waste of time. It's very interesting, nice as a hobby, but has little to no real application. There may be some merit in trying to derive information from what happened in the past, but that's really just an imprecise version of science. It's necessary, in the same sense that an accounting office is necessary both at an amusement park and an office building.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 9:54:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/6/2010 9:49:54 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 11/6/2010 9:33:24 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Like the OP, I find things like history so much more interesting than science, but studying science is kinda important too. Of course, it depends on which field it is. Alot of things in fields such as astronomy seem like a waste of money and resources.

Satellites? GPS? For centuries, Astronomy has been used to measure the earth, to predict weather and climate, to navigate ships to trade in far-off lands. Not only that, but Astronomy has lead to the vast majority of high-tech equipment that we use for virtually every other field of science. We've expanded on physics monumentally with astronomy.

Ok, maybe astronomy was a bad example. However, there are some things done in some fields that seem like a waste of money.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 10:01:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/6/2010 9:54:37 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Ok, maybe astronomy was a bad example. However, there are some things done in some fields that seem like a waste of money.

Yeah. As I said, there are impractical components of science. Then, there's pseudo-science. Like astrology, scientology, creationism, etc.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
JimProfit
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2010 12:14:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
So why do you or anyone else likes science by itself (meaning you mustn't include the results of science). I just find the entire thing very boring (with few exceptions).

I do. I love every moment of learning about physics and technology. I like to think we're all going to die in some horrific cosmic way. Super nova, black hole, time paradox...

Look up "dark energy". It makes up like 70% of the universe, and is basically like quantamn nytoglycerin. If you don't know what that is, it's a highly unstable liquid that can cause explosions.

The fun thing about science is you can learn of ways to kill hummanity so cheap, even a negro could afford it! It's awesome. I've thought of a way to introduce to the public chemtrails that could increase the likelyhood of cancer by a whole thirty percent, and turn the average death from cancer to 3 out of 4! (Where as of now it's 1 out of 4)

To be fair, I also know of ways to treat cancer without the need for chemotherapy. But why would I look up that crap purposely? I'm not The Dala Lama... lulz!
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2011 10:23:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2010 9:36:00 AM, vardas0antras wrote:

I just find the entire thing very boring (with few exceptions).

Then you are not learning science, but most likely facts about science. It is like reading the definition of sex and having it, one may be boring the other not so much.

Science is a way of thinking, it allows you to develop a body of knowledge and the application is limited only by your imagination (also pretty much like sex).
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2011 11:10:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
To enjoy work as a professional scientist, you must like focusing on one problem or a narrow set of problems, learning everything there is to know about thqat small piece of the universe, and pounding away at in the hope of discovering new things. It's for people who are very, very determined. Many years, or even a whole career, may be spent without a big breakthrough. As a career, it is at the opposite end of the spectrum from sales and marketing, where gratification is quick (you get a sale) or defeat is quick (you lose) so you can move on to a fresh prospect.

Science is so specialized that being a scientist does not mean much in general about learning all of science. Our Energy Secretary, Dr. Chu, won a Nobel Prize, but that is not a good reason to believe he knows anything about global warming. He is generally quite cautious about claiming what he knows and doesn't know, and that is admirable.

Many scientists are not so cautious, and that's annoying. Paul Krugman won a Nobel in economics, but it was in micro-economics, and he cannot be logically expected to know about how a large economy works as a whole.

If you like understand the results of scientific inquiry and want to put them to practical application, then you should consider engineering rather than science. Engineering projects are usually done in a few years, so the payoffs are a lot closer than in science, but still long compared to sales and marketing.

If you have little interest in how physical things work either broadly or narrowly, then it's unlikely you will overcome hat on the way to being a scientist. find something that interests you and ask yourself why you thing it's interesting. That may suggest other fields of interest.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2011 1:55:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/4/2011 11:10:11 AM, RoyLatham wrote:

To enjoy work as a professional scientist, you must like focusing on one problem or a narrow set of problems, learning everything there is to know about thqat small piece of the universe, and pounding away at in the hope of discovering new things.

Roy, while that is certainly a part, it is not all of what there is to research, there is also collaboration, presenting, debate, teaching, consulting, etc. . Engineering is however far more practical, and if direct application is of interest, it is far more likely to be satisfactory than even a pure experimentalist.

Another difference though is the workload, engineering makes physics look like a joke in that respect. The course load is much higher and the sheer volume of papes/labs that have to be done make it almost mandatory to work in at least partners, usually small teams.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2011 2:05:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If you lack a motivation to study science, then science wouldn't interest you in the slightest, so there is no point in trying to motivate you.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2011 2:09:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
But the cool thing about science is that it makes it clear how painfully ignorant we are.

Most people have the misconception that science takes the mystery out of life.. It does the opposite.

Science is not what people think it is. It is a methodology to gain a better understanding of the natural world. A hypothesis is a guess.. A theory is an hypothesis that is backed up by evidence.

A theory is still just our best guess. In some subjects, you will find multiple theories that explain the same thing. The theory itself isn't science, it is the information used to construct the theory that is science.

Science is pretty logical and solid. It really is the best method we have to understanding the world around us. There really isn't another way.

Of course, science without creativity finds itself at a stand still.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2011 2:19:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/4/2011 2:09:35 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:

Most people have the misconception that science takes the mystery out of life.. It does the opposite.

Yes, that unfortunately is how it is presented though, but there is always the further question. Feynman had some brilliant quotes on science and how anyone could read his books or listen to him and not want to continue is beyond me :
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2011 6:39:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/4/2011 1:55:13 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 2/4/2011 11:10:11 AM, RoyLatham wrote:


To enjoy work as a professional scientist, you must like focusing on one problem or a narrow set of problems, learning everything there is to know about thqat small piece of the universe, and pounding away at in the hope of discovering new things.

Roy, while that is certainly a part, it is not all of what there is to research, there is also collaboration, presenting, debate, teaching, consulting, etc. .

Those are skills ancillary to the task. They are common to engineering, law, business, and other professions. I think it's the narrow focus that that is distinctive of science.

Another difference though is the workload, engineering makes physics look like a joke in that respect. The course load is much higher and the sheer volume of papes/labs that have to be done make it almost mandatory to work in at least partners, usually small teams.

I don't agree. A PhD is required for scientists, not so for engineers. Scientists probably generally spend more hours on the job than engineers. I think engineering requires a broader range of skills, however, and often more creativity.
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2011 6:57:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/4/2011 2:19:53 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 2/4/2011 2:09:35 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:

Most people have the misconception that science takes the mystery out of life.. It does the opposite.

Yes, that unfortunately is how it is presented though, but there is always the further question. Feynman had some brilliant quotes on science and how anyone could read his books or listen to him and not want to continue is beyond me :







Thanks Cliff. I couldn't agree more, and the way he describes us looking in the mirror is priceless.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 8:32:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/5/2011 6:39:49 PM, RoyLatham wrote:

Those are skills ancillary to the task. They are common to engineering, law, business, and other professions. I think it's the narrow focus that that is distinctive of science.

As a researcher yes, for the majority that is true, but not every scientist makes that the majority or focus of what they do, some are quite content to teach, some to mentor, some don't even end up in the field. Currently I work in the primary sector in a field which has no direct content relation to my actual degree, but I still apply the basic approach of generation of knowledge to what and how I do what I do.

The biggest difference in attitude that I would see is one of application, engineering tends to be heavily focused on actual doing something practical, science often is not. Projects can be completed simply for the fact of knowing with never a thought given to what could be gained from knowing. This is not a pure division, but it tends to be heavily biased, engineers tend to be more practical in application than scientists.

I don't agree. A PhD is required for scientists, not so for engineers. Scientists probably generally spend more hours on the job than engineers. I think engineering requires a broader range of skills, however, and often more creativity.

For a career in research it is almost impossible without a post-doct position yes, unless one is extremely talented, but again science is not restricted to research and there are also the new age of scientists such as Lisi who work outside of formal institutions and who view the formal structure of research to be dampening, based on similar points made by Khun in regards to paradigm constraints.

The work load was simply my experience, having done with with friends who did the other, it could be different in different institutions however I doubt it.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2011 3:11:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Cliff, No, science is restricted to research. there are applications which involve research, so it need not be done purely to gain academic knowledge. For example, the semiconductor industry does a lot of surface physics. Those who only teach science are teachers. On the college level, faculty teaching science is almost invariably involved in research as well as teaching. If not, they are teachers.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 6:55:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
So you can succeed where every other scientist has failed, by creating the ultimate dooms day device and becoming tyrant of the world MUHAHAHAHAHA

Either that or spent most of your life in a lab looking at swabs of peoples genital warts. Up to you I guess.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12