Exploring Scientific Drive: Is There a Duty to Benefit Humanity?

[lubuntu]

I've started to figure out that my drive to do science is essentially derived from the fact that I am at essence a nihilist. By this I mean that I can see no intrinsic meaning to my life -besides what I attach post-facto- and can see no thing that is a more fundamental level worth doing than to examine the origin of the universe and how it came to be that we arrived in our situation.

I see myself as having bearing no responsibility of the world I was born into and having no obligation to change it. Frankly, I don't see humanity going in any direction that I see worthwhile within my lifetime. The number and magnitude of our societal problems are simply too complex to resolved any time soon and it seems pretty clear that we are still in the midst of a civilization changing epoch and that it may continue for awhile, or be cut short by humans killing themselves. While I do have some ideas of how I wish civilization could/would work they are always viewed as extremely naive-and in someways are- but I cannot reconcile my idealism with our world.

The point is this viewpoint seems to contrast greatly with some other scientifically minded people I may meet that obtain their scientific drive from a need or want to better humanity. Somehow this makes me feel somewhat guilty but at the same time I view the sole purpose of science to distill objective truths about the universe from empirical observation without any value judgement.

What is the majority opinion in this regard in the scientific community? Obviously some areas of science are more geared towards benefiting humanity than others, are there some fields where the assertion or denial of this duty are explicitly stated as an important part of the field?

 

[Pythagorean]

I only do science because I'm genuinely interested in the mechanisms behind the phenomena I study. Of course, there are humanitarian benefits, but if I were to be honest, they're not what drives my curiosity.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I've started to figure out that my drive to do science is essentially derived from the fact that I am at essence a nihilist. By this I mean that I can see no intrinsic meaning to my life -besides what I attach post-facto- and can see no thing that is a more fundamental level worth doing than to examine the origin of the universe and how it came to be that we arrived in our situation.

I see myself as having bearing no responsibility of the world I was born into and having no obligation to change it. Frankly, I don't see humanity going in any direction that I see worthwhile within my lifetime. The number and magnitude of our societal problems are simply too complex to resolved any time soon and it seems pretty clear that we are still in the midst of a civilization changing epoch and that it may continue for awhile, or be cut short by humans killing themselves. While I do have some ideas of how I wish civilization could/would work they are always viewed as extremely naive-and in someways are- but I cannot reconcile my idealism with our world.

The point is this viewpoint seems to contrast greatly with some other scientifically minded people I may meet that obtain their scientific drive from a need or want to better humanity. Somehow this makes me feel somewhat guilty but at the same time I view the sole purpose of science to distill objective truths about the universe from empirical observation without any value judgement.

What is the majority opinion in this regard in the scientific community? Obviously some areas of science are more geared towards benefiting humanity than others, are there some fields where the assertion or denial of this duty are explicitly stated as an important part of the field?

You bear no responsibility to do anything. You don't think there is any hope. You don't believe your life or anything else has meaning. Yet you want to do something worthwhile? Why? How? Your statement is paradoxical.

I suggest that you do care, you want to make a difference, and you think the pursuit of fundamental knowledge will ultimately serve this purpose.

 

[lubuntu]

You bear no responsibility to do anything. You don't think there is any hope. You don't believe your life or anything else has meaning. Yet you want to do something worthwhile? Why? How? Your statement is paradoxical.

I suggest that you do care, you want to make a difference, and you think the pursuit of fundamental knowledge will ultimately serve this purpose.

No, I do not believe that anything has INTRINSIC meaning not that there is no meaning at all. Of course I hope that things would be different for our species some day but really at the root my science for me is an entirely selfish pursuit.

 

[Pengwuino]

I can't imagine there exists any fields where people participate in the field BECAUSE it has no benefit to humanity. Not that people only love doing things that are beneficial to society, but it's hard to really imagine something that has a negative effect on society as a primary purpose or influence.

 

[Lisa!]

Right now science is doing me
PS I say that because I'm working on my thesis and it takes too much time

 

[lubuntu]

I can't imagine there exists any fields where people participate in the field BECAUSE it has no benefit to humanity. Not that people only love doing things that are beneficial to society, but it's hard to really imagine something that has a negative effect on society as a primary purpose or influence.

What I am about to say is I am sure viewed as controversial by some and also the sort of cliched response.

I would argue that any science and or engineering project that is of purely militaristic goals has a primarily negative effect in aggregate on humanity. Although I am sure those that take part in such things would not see it that way.

I wouldn't imagine any pure scientific field exists that draws people because it has no benefit to humanity but it may draw people specifically because it has no applied use and deals with ideas that might allow people to feel like are transcending the typical mundane human experience and seeing reality more directly.

I think it was Dawkins maybe in a lecture talking about NASA and how often its justification is given as "it leads to production of new technologies that are useful here on earth...", what he said, and I agree with is that that is a terrible primary reason to do science. Science is done first for sciences sake. Of course it is not how the world works, but that's the worlds problem not mine.

 

[nucleargirl]

I think life has no meaning either! I want to do science cos I can't imagine myself doing anything else... no other skills! and I don't like people enough to be a doctor or anything dealing with people.

 

[ThomasT]

I've started to figure out that my drive to do science is essentially derived from the fact that I am at essence a nihilist. By this I mean that I can see no intrinsic meaning to my life -besides what I attach post-facto- and can see no thing that is a more fundamental level worth doing than to examine the origin of the universe and how it came to be that we arrived in our situation.

I see myself as having bearing no responsibility of the world I was born into and having no obligation to change it. Frankly, I don't see humanity going in any direction that I see worthwhile within my lifetime. The number and magnitude of our societal problems are simply too complex to resolved any time soon and it seems pretty clear that we are still in the midst of a civilization changing epoch and that it may continue for awhile, or be cut short by humans killing themselves. While I do have some ideas of how I wish civilization could/would work they are always viewed as extremely naive-and in someways are- but I cannot reconcile my idealism with our world.

The point is this viewpoint seems to contrast greatly with some other scientifically minded people I may meet that obtain their scientific drive from a need or want to better humanity. Somehow this makes me feel somewhat guilty but at the same time I view the sole purpose of science to distill objective truths about the universe from empirical observation without any value judgement.

What is the majority opinion in this regard in the scientific community? Obviously some areas of science are more geared towards benefiting humanity than others, are there some fields where the assertion or denial of this duty are explicitly stated as an important part of the field?

Yours is a somewhat sophisticated view. I agree that there's no particular reason to do or not do any particular thing if one embraces a worldview that humans and human values are simply emergent artifacts of valueless, wrt the emergent human regime, fundamental physical dynamics.

And, I do embrace this worldview.

But we're not, effectively, functionaries of that fundamental level, even though the fundamental dynamics are still relevant wrt our scale of behavior/interaction. There are rules and organizing principles specific to our level of behavior/interaction. So, here it is, if you want to feel happy and satisfied and fulfilled, then you behave according to the rules that are specific to our level of behavior.

That is, the wise man knows that none of his experience matters, but he, nonetheless, behaves as if it does. So, you treat other people with respect, commit to treat some of them with love, and, most importantly, get a hobby that you can get, passionately, into. Maybe you'll eventually be able to make some money from it. Who knows.

Anyway, the title of the thread is "Why do you do science?" Well, science is the method, the tool, by which the truest understanding of our world is revealed. So, why wouldn't one do science, and/or embrace the results thereof?

 

[jackmell]

I do science because to know, I find very comforting and cathartic. Many people live their lives in a haze of ignorance. This leads to unhappiness, depression, disease, trauma, and suffering. But to know why, why are things the way they are, relieves those agonies and allows me to live a life of relative happiness and peace. You may not always get what you want, but if you know why things are the way that they are, many unpleasant experiences in life are easier to tolerate and you're happy with what you do get and in my opinion, I'd rather live a happy life than a sad one.

 

[Andre]

I 'do science' to know too, but the problem is when others know other things. In essence we should wonder what we really know and what we think we know. In reality you change into an outcast instead, wondering why you should 'do science' in the first place.

 

[jackmell]

I personally find it quite an advantage to know biology, chemistry, and biochemistry. So many people know little about these things, they live unhealthy lives because they don't understand the biochemistry of a healthy life, become unhappy because they do not understand the raw Darwinism that still permeates much of our lives, and remain always in a cloud of confusion because they do not accept that we are at out core, still constrained by the chemistry that is in all of us.

 

[HeLiXe]

I think for me it's interest and familiarity.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

I do science because it's an interesting and enjoyable pursuit. As a kid I was always taking things apart to figure out how they work. Now, I'm doing the same thing except with much more complicated systems: cells and viruses. How does the chemistry of the molecular assemblies in these systems produce life? This is a very difficult, but fascinating question. If I do find something potentially useful to humanity, its only a nice side benefit (or done purposefully in order to secure funding).

 

[The legend]

I do science, simply because I love it. I love the physical nature, and it's happenings, and hence I love science. It's purely fascination and curiosity that drives me to learn it.

 

[drizzle]

Right now science is doing me
PS I say that because I'm working on my thesis and it takes too much time

I know the feeling

 

[tracydimarco]

I'm in science because I believe there's an answer for everything - it may or may not be discovered yet, so it's up to me to find it out :)

 

[Periotic]

I can't imagine what I am doing without science. Probably I would be some lazy teenager lollygagging on my bed and doing nothing. Science drived me to study harder. I somehow know something about the universe and I now want a telescope.

But my dad won't take it seriously. He thinks everything I do, the researching, the scientific stuff is all childish and cute.

 

[arildno]

Right now science is doing me
PS I say that because I'm working on my thesis and it takes too much time

Diagnosis:
Nausea thesarium
Prognosis:
You'll get through it.

Qualification:
Been there, had that. It was awful, for my part, it took away much of the pride in my own achievement, and the (very good) evaluation of it given by others.
Frankly, it was a huge relief not needing to think about the damn thesis once I had written it.

 

[billiards]

I had very poor science teachers in school, who were dull and uninspiring. I very nearly dropped science altogether at the age of 16.

Something kept me at it though, at 17 I discovered there was a subject I could do called geology. Geology appealed to my boyhood fascinations, it contained cool things like dinosaurs and volcanoes, and it was a subject in which you could go to the beach and hunt for crystals and fossils. As a kid I loved going to the beach and collecting interesting pebbles, and smashing them open to see if there was anything inside. So I picked geology and ... now (10 years later) I'm doing a PhD in geophysics.

 

[lisab]

I had very poor science teachers in school, who were dull and uninspiring. I very nearly dropped science altogether at the age of 16.

Something kept me at it though, at 17 I discovered there was a subject I could do called geology. Geology appealed to my boyhood fascinations, it contained cool things like dinosaurs and volcanoes, and it was a subject in which you could go to the beach and hunt for crystals and fossils. As a kid I loved going to the beach and collecting interesting pebbles, and smashing them open to see if there was anything inside. So I picked geology and ... now (10 years later) I'm doing a PhD in geophysics.

One of the best teachers I've ever known went into the field because she had nothing but horrible teachers all through elementary school, and believed she could be better. She is an awesome teacher!

How does that saying go..."Everyone has a purpose; for some, it's to be a bad example."

 

[billiards]

One of the best teachers I've ever known went into the field because she had nothing but horrible teachers all through elementary school, and believed she could be better. She is an awesome teacher!

How does that saying go..."Everyone has a purpose; for some, it's to be a bad example."

Good for her!

For me nothing good has come out of my bad teacher experience (yet). I would love to meet them again though, and to teach THEM some science! I remember the teacher drawing a tilted test tube on the board, she drew the fluid in the tube that tilted at the angle of the tube -- when I suggested that perhaps the fluid would remain level she insisted that no, in fact fluids do tilt at the angle of their container!

Fortunately for me I had a good maths teacher at school, and my science teachers at college were excellent, so that saved me.

 

[Macocio]

I do science because I can see its beauty.

 

[Macocio]

Sorry I didn't mean to kill the thread T_T

 

[dimensional]

The beauty of reality is too enthralling for me to not embrace it fully on the deepest level possible, which I find in science and art.

 

[chiro]

Whether mathematics is a science or not is debatable, but I do science for the following reasons:

1) Because I'm curious about the world
2) Because I want to understand what is said about the world and make an informed judgement that at least to me makes sense logically based on intuition as well as facts

Unfortunately one of the downsides with a lack of education is that people in this situation can not often make an informed judgement about what people say and thus be in the position of being "swindled" or lied to about something which may be in the interest of another party.

I don't think being educated makes you an absolute authority on anything no matter how "distinguished" or not you are, but it does allow you to be more confident in having a voice that challenges the current authority if that authority is purposely misleading others with fraudulent claims or bad science.

Its for the above reasons alone that I think education is a great asset to all walks of life so that the "shamans" (be them scientific or religious) don't herd the sheep.

 

[mugaliens]

I do science because I can see its beauty.

It is indeed a beautiful thing to be able to sort through life's daily issues in a rational manner.

That's why I do science.

 

[ZapperZ]

http://blogs.nature.com/catalyst/2011/01/10/why-do-we-do-science

Zz.

 

[fillipeano]

Curiosity is the main reason. I want to do science because I am curious. Plain and simple

 

[Hepth]

It is indeed a beautiful thing to be able to sort through life's daily issues in a rational manner.

That's why I do science.

I agree.
The study of science alters your point of reference for judging the importance of daily problems and stresses. Unfortunately it leads to some conflicts as I now have a hard time empathizing with those around me who let such small, insignificant(to me) things produce such a profound effect on their emotions. Sometimes I feel like a robot...

 

[Mépris]

I've started to figure out that my drive to do science is essentially derived from the fact that I am at essence a nihilist. By this I mean that I can see no intrinsic meaning to my life -besides what I attach post-facto- and can see no thing that is a more fundamental level worth doing than to examine the origin of the universe and how it came to be that we arrived in our situation.

I see myself as having bearing no responsibility of the world I was born into and having no obligation to change it. Frankly, I don't see humanity going in any direction that I see worthwhile within my lifetime. The number and magnitude of our societal problems are simply too complex to resolved any time soon and it seems pretty clear that we are still in the midst of a civilization changing epoch and that it may continue for awhile, or be cut short by humans killing themselves. While I do have some ideas of how I wish civilization could/would work they are always viewed as extremely naive-and in someways are- but I cannot reconcile my idealism with our world.

The point is this viewpoint seems to contrast greatly with some other scientifically minded people I may meet that obtain their scientific drive from a need or want to better humanity. Somehow this makes me feel somewhat guilty but at the same time I view the sole purpose of science to distill objective truths about the universe from empirical observation without any value judgement.

What is the majority opinion in this regard in the scientific community? Obviously some areas of science are more geared towards benefiting humanity than others, are there some fields where the assertion or denial of this duty are explicitly stated as an important part of the field?

I share similar views with regards to existence. Or at least, I used to. As of right now, I've decided to re-assess my views and my life and come to another, or perhaps (who knows?), the same conclusion once I learn more about the world and its history, among other things.

I discussed this very topic with someone, roughly a month ago and that person argued that there is some form of good in men. Among the examples he cited, was the fight against slavery and how it took but a few men for it (slavery) to be abolished. He didn't say there was a defined point to existence but only that there was some kind of goal and that was to "go forward". His personal beliefs and views about the world en gros, somewhat mirrored 'secular humanism', which rejects any form of religious and supernatural dogmas and is about inherently doing 'the right thing', where 'right' is what is 'right' by your own standards. (something like that)

He talked for a good while and I have to say that this was one of the most interesting and somewhat enlightening conversations I had had in a long while but yeah, I do not feel ready, at least, not at this moment as I type, to make a decision concerning this, life in general.
He mentioned 'The Plague' ('La Peste') by Albert Camus and insisted that I read it. I don't really have much to say about this but I will, for sure, once I've done my research and have read the book.

 

[DBTS]

I only do science because I'm genuinely interested in the mechanisms behind the phenomena I study. Of course, there are humanitarian benefits, but if I were to be honest, they're not what drives my curiosity.

I have similar views. I am in the sciences because I find the field I am studying fascinating and really do not care for money to be honest. I also find it a way to get away from the stresses of life and imagine various possibilities. The humanitarian aspect of it is just icing on a great cake.

I also like to travel and hope to travel to different parts of the world on, hopefully, every continent to discover more things. I wish all aspects of scientific fields had a bit more respect though.