No, I don’t think the choice of examples is bad—I had another draft where I used understanding the pathogenesis of some common disease as an example, which is even more clearly beneficial.
My point is that even when rational analysis tells us that something will be very useful, the “sense of curiosity” can disagree. Otherwise, we’d all be fascinated by immunology because of its high probability of giving us a cure for cancer and AIDS. Likewise, discovering that Stonehenge was built by aliens would be practically useless unless it provided some way of contacting the aliens or using their technology, but it would still be considered “interesting”.
That’s why I didn’t include “gives a practical benefit” as a criterion. Instead I said “changes a lot of beliefs”, which a better understanding of photosynthesis wouldn’t, and “teaches you something that other people want to know”, which photosynthesis again wouldn’t (lots of people would want the improved solar technology, but not many people would care how it worked).
I’m not sure that’s true. Lots of people would want to know how to make the improved solar technology, because it would be immensely commercially valuable.
Also, I tend to think people’s beliefs about technology, science, and the way to solve problems would change, given a large change in energy infrastructure.
People use pervasive technology or social structures as a metaphor for many things, especially new ideas. Witness how early 20th century theorists use mechanical and hydraulic metaphors in their theories of the body and brain, whereas late 20th century biologists use network, electrical, and systems metaphors that simply didn’t exist before.
I agree with Yvain—the pyramid on Mars would radically change our beliefs, make us re-evaluate all of history and archaeology and geology, and reprioritize national science funding.
Yes, that’s true. I think I was fighting a rearguard action here, trying to defend my hypothesis. I’ve changed my votes accordingly. Cheers to you and Yvain.
No, I don’t think the choice of examples is bad—I had another draft where I used understanding the pathogenesis of some common disease as an example, which is even more clearly beneficial.
My point is that even when rational analysis tells us that something will be very useful, the “sense of curiosity” can disagree. Otherwise, we’d all be fascinated by immunology because of its high probability of giving us a cure for cancer and AIDS. Likewise, discovering that Stonehenge was built by aliens would be practically useless unless it provided some way of contacting the aliens or using their technology, but it would still be considered “interesting”.
That’s why I didn’t include “gives a practical benefit” as a criterion. Instead I said “changes a lot of beliefs”, which a better understanding of photosynthesis wouldn’t, and “teaches you something that other people want to know”, which photosynthesis again wouldn’t (lots of people would want the improved solar technology, but not many people would care how it worked).
I’m not sure that’s true. Lots of people would want to know how to make the improved solar technology, because it would be immensely commercially valuable.
Also, I tend to think people’s beliefs about technology, science, and the way to solve problems would change, given a large change in energy infrastructure.
People use pervasive technology or social structures as a metaphor for many things, especially new ideas. Witness how early 20th century theorists use mechanical and hydraulic metaphors in their theories of the body and brain, whereas late 20th century biologists use network, electrical, and systems metaphors that simply didn’t exist before.
I agree with Yvain—the pyramid on Mars would radically change our beliefs, make us re-evaluate all of history and archaeology and geology, and reprioritize national science funding.
Yes, that’s true. I think I was fighting a rearguard action here, trying to defend my hypothesis. I’ve changed my votes accordingly. Cheers to you and Yvain.