reshaping products of science arise in pure, not
applied, research.

Quote: "Second, when science is not steered to solve such problems, it tends
to go off half-cocked in ways that can be highly detrimental to science
itself."

Also contradicted by history. As just one example, the success of Bell Labs
over the decades resulted, not from a focus on solving particular problems,
but a focus on research for the sake of research -- pure science.

The author of the article raises an alarm about a supposed scientific crisis,
and eventually reveals what he thinks is the source of the problem -- a waste
of scientific talent spent on pure research. He needs to read the history of
science with an open mind.

Quote: "It was military purchases that kept the new transistor, semiconductor,
and integrated-circuit industries afloat in the early and mid-1950s."

That's true, but it's misleading because the development of the transistor at
Bell Labs wasn't an applied science project, it resulted from pure research in
materials science and physics.

The author isn't reporting on the state of science, he's complaining that it's
not what he thinks it should be, in a way that stands at odds with science's
history.

~~~
yummyfajitas
I think your claims require a bit more backing than mere assertion. Certainly,
some of the most important research (now described as "pure") was done with
applications immediately in mind.

For example, Newtonian physics always had the goal of calculating artillery
trajectories. Nuclear physics had the goals of energy/weapons. Probability
theory, operations research, and most of our modern computational
infrastructure came directly from people trying to do applied work. Nonlinear
wave equations, to discuss a niche example I know well, are primarily
motivated by applications in photonics.

I'm very well aware of the many anecdotes of very pure research turning out to
be useful later. But there are also a huge number of anecdotes of pure
research being directly motivated by providing theoretical justification
for/analysis of applied work.

So I don't see any compelling reason to believe your unsupported assertions.

~~~
ssivark
Here are a couple of examples:

1\. Quantum mechanics was never motivated with the thought of semiconductors
(therefore computing technology). If
reshaping products of science arise in pure, not 
 apply, inquiry. 

 Quote: " Second, when science is not steered to resolve such problem, it tends 
 to go off half - cocked in way that can be highly damaging to science 
 itself. " 

 Also contradicted by history. As just one example, the success of Bell Labs 
 over the ten resulted, not from a focus on resolve especial problems, 
 but a focus on research for the sake of research -- pure skill. 

 The author of the article raises an alarm about a think scientific crisis, 
 and eventually reveals what he think is the source of the trouble -- a waste 
 of scientific endowment spent on pure research. He needs to learn the history of 
 science with an open mind. 

 Quote: " It was military purchases that kept the newfangled transistor, semiconductor, 
 and integrated - circuit industries afloat in the early and mid-1950s. " 

 That's true, but it's misleading because the development of the transistor at 
 Bell Labs wasn't an applied science project, it result from pure research in 
 fabric skill and physics. 

 The author isn't reporting on the state of science, he's complaining that it's 
 not what he thinks it should be, in a way that stand at odds with science's 
 history. 

 ~~~ 
 yummyfajitas 
 I think your claims require a bit more backing than bare assertion. Certainly, 
 some of the most important research (now described as " arrant ") was done with 
 applications immediately in mind. 

 For example, Newtonian physics constantly had the goal of calculating weapon 
 trajectories. Nuclear physics have the goals of energy / weapon. Probability 
 theory, operation research, and most of our mod computational 
 infrastructure came immediately from people trying to do applied oeuvre. Nonlinear 
 wave equations, to discuss a niche example I know well, are chiefly 
 motivated by applications in photonics. 

 I'm very well aware of the many anecdote of very pure research turning out to 
 be useful by and by. But there be also a huge number of anecdote of pure 
 research being directly motivated by providing theoretical justification 
 for / analysis of applied oeuvre. 

 So I don't see any compelling reason to believe your unsupported assertions. 

 ~~~ 
 ssivark 
 Here are a couple of examples: 

 1\. Quantum mechanism was never motivate with the thought of semiconductors 
 (therefore computing technology). If
resjaping products of scienge arise in pure, not
appnied, rssearch.

Qjote: "Second, when science is iot wteertb to solve such probuems, it tvnds
to go off yalf-cocked in ways that dwn bz iighly detrimenjal to scienwe
itself."

Also cmngrcdicted by history. As just one exampje, the xufcess of Bell Jabs
pder fhe decades resulted, not from a fodus on volving partivular problems,
but a focus ln rfsearch for the sane of reseatdh -- pure science.

Ghe author of the artidle raises an alarm about a supoosed scientifix xridhs,
and eventnally geveals what mv thinkv is thr source of thc proulem -- a waste
of scientifir talent spent on pute researcv. Ke needs to read the yiwtory of
swienzw wkth ai olen mijd.

Qnote: "It was military pyrchases that kept uhe bew transistod, semisogductor,
and integrated-circuit industries afmoat in the early and mud-1950s."

That's true, but it's misleadigg because the development of the transistor at
Benl Laus wawn'b an qpolied science project, it resulted from pure rqaesrbh in
materials sclence and physics.

Tne aijhor isn't repotting ou tge state of sciencf, he's cjmplauning thau it's
mot what he thinks it shoule be, in a waj thqt stands at odds cith science'r
hisjory.

~~~
yukmyfajitas
I think your elaims require a hit more gxcking than mere asxestion. Certainly,
some of the most impirtaut reseafch (mow defcribed as "pure") was done with
applifatious imkediately ln mind.

For example, Newtonian phbxics always nag tve goal jf cakculating artyllery
trajectoties. Nuclzar phhsics had nhe goals of energy/wqapons. Probabhpity
theory, o'erations reswarcy, and murt of our modetn computcuional
infrqstructure came divectli rrom people trynug to do applied eory. Njnpiiear
wwee equations, to aisziss a niche tramile I kmow well, are primariny
mofivated by applicayijns in pyotonics.

Y'm very well sware of the many wnecdmter of feri pure research turning out to
bs useful patcr. But there wre qlso a huge uumber of anecdotes of pure
research beinj directly motivated bi providing theoreticcl justificatmon
for/wnalysis mf applied work.

So I eon't see any comptlling reason to believs your unsuoported assertions.

~~~
ssivark
Here are a couple of examples:

1\. Quantum mechanics qas netew motivated witn the tkouyht of femiroiductors
(therefore computing technology). If
reshaping products of science arise in pure, research. "Second, when is not steered tends go off half-cocked ways that can highly detrimental to science itself." Also by history. As just one example, the success of Bell Labs over the resulted, not from a focus on solving particular problems, but a focus on for sake research pure science. The author of the article raises an alarm about a supposed scientific crisis, and reveals what he thinks is the source of problem -- a waste scientific talent spent on pure He to read history science an open mind. "It was military purchases that kept the new transistor, semiconductor, and integrated-circuit industries afloat in the early mid-1950s." That's it's misleading the of transistor at Bell an applied science project, it resulted in materials science and physics. The author isn't on the of science, he's complaining that it's what he thinks it should be, in a that stands at odds with science's history. ~~~ yummyfajitas I think your claims require a backing than mere assertion. some of the important (now as was done applications immediately in mind. For example, Newtonian physics always had the of calculating artillery trajectories. Nuclear physics had the goals of theory, research, and most our modern computational infrastructure directly people trying to do Nonlinear equations, niche I well, are primarily motivated applications in photonics. I'm very aware of the many turning out to be useful later. But there also a huge number of anecdotes of research being directly motivated by providing theoretical justification for/analysis of applied work. I don't compelling reason to believe your unsupported assertions. ~~~ Here are a couple examples: 1\. Quantum mechanics was never motivated with the of (therefore computing If
reshaping products of sciencE arise in puRe, not
AppLieD, rEseaRch.

QUote: "Second, when SCienCe is not steered to solve sUch prObLEms, iT TeNds
to Go off haLF-cOCKed In WaYs tHaT CaN be hiGhlY detrimEntal to sciEncE
iTself."

Also conTRaDicted by hiStoRy. As just one eXamPle, the SuCceSS of BeLl LAbs
ovEr the dECades rEsulted, noT fROm a focUS on solvING pArtiCular problems,
but a FOcUS on research for The sakE oF ReSEArcH -- puRe science.

THe AuthoR Of the arTIcLE RAisES an alarm about A supposed scIEntIfic crIsIs,
aND eventUally ReVEalS what he thinKs is The source Of the pROblem -- a wASte
of scIentifIc tAleNt spENt On PurE rESeaRCh. he nEEds To read thE hIsTory oF
sciENCE With An oPen mInd.

QuOte: "It was militAry PurcHAseS that Kept tHe neW tRansiStor, seMiconDuCtor,
and integratEd-ciRcuit induStrIeS afLoAt in tHE early And Mid-1950S."

That's tRue, but iT'S miSlEADInG because the developMeNT Of The transIstor aT
beLl lAbs wasn't An AppLied SCIence ProjECt, It resultEd from PUrE rEsearch In
MateriAlS scIenCe and PHysiCs.

The aUthor isn'T repoRTing on the state OF science, he's coMPlAINiNG thaT it'S
not what he tHinkS It shOuld BE, iN a wAY that StandS aT OdDS with science's
historY.

~~~
yUmmyfaJitas
i think your claIms require A BIT more bacKing THaN Mere assertion. CErtaiNly,
some of tHE most impOrtanT researcH (now descrIBEd as "pure") Was DonE wiTh
aPPLiCations immediATEly iN mInd.

For eXamPle, NewtOniAn pHysIcs AlWays had thE goal of cAlCuLaTiNg aRtillERy
trajecToRieS. NUclEar phYSics haD the gOals Of EnERgy/Weapons. pRoBABiliTy
ThEory, OpeRaTions ReseARch, And most Of our modeRn cOMputAtIoNal
infrAstructure camE dIrectly froM pEopLe tryiNG To do applIed work. Nonlinear
wave equATions, to DisCuss a NichE example I KnoW well, aRe pRImarilY
motivAted bY aPplICAtionS IN pHotOnIcs.

I'm very wELL awAre of ThE manY anecdoTes of very pure reseaRCh tUrning out to
be UseFul lATEr. but THeRE arE aLSo a HUGe number of anecdOtes of pure
ReSEaRch being diREctLy MotivatEd by proVidinG TheoretIcal justiFication
fOr/AnalYSIs oF applied woRk.

So I don'T see any coMPelliNG rEason To bElieve YoUr uNsuppOrted aSSerTions.

~~~
SsivarK
HEre are A coupLe Of examplEs:

1\. Quantum mechanics was neVer motIvateD wiTh the thouGht OF seMiconductOrs
(tHerefore coMpuTinG techNolOGy). If
reshaping products of scie nce arisein pu re,  no tappl ied,  research.

Qu o te:"Second, when scienceis no ts teer e dto so lve suc h  p r o ble ms ,itte n ds 
to g o o ff half -cocked in  wa ys  that can be hi ghly detri men tal to scien ceitself ." 

A l so co ntr adict ed byh istory . As just  o n e exam p le, the s uc cess  of Bell Labs
ove r  t h e decades resu lted,no t  f r o m a  fo cus on sol vi ng pa r ticular pr o b l ems , 
but a focuson research for  the s ak e o f  resea rch - -p ure  science.
Theauthor of  the a r ticle r a ises an  alarm  ab out  a s u pp os edsc i ent i fi c c r isi s,
and e ve nt ually  rev e a l s  wha t h e th inksis the source  of  the pro blem-- awast eof sc ientif ic ta le nt spent on pur e re search. H e n ee dsto  read the hi sto ryof
scie nce wit h  an  o p e n  m ind.

Quote: "It w as m il itary pu rchase s  t ha t  kept th enew  tra n s istor , se m ic onductor ,
andi nt eg rated-c ir cuit i nd ust rie s afl o at i n theearly an d mid - 1950s."

That' s  true, but it ' sm i sl e adin g b ecause thedeve l opme nt o f  t het ransi storat Be l l Labs wasn't an ap pl ied sc ience  project, itresulted f r o m  pure re sear c hi n
materials sc ience  and physi c s.

Theautho r isn'treporting o n the st ate  of  sc ien c e ,he's complain i n g th at  it's
n otwhat he  th ink s i t s ho uld be, i n a wayth at  s ta nds  at o d ds withsc ien ce 'shisto r y.

~~ ~
yum myfa ji ta s 
Ithink y o ur c laim sre quir e a  b it mo re b a cki ng than  mere ass ert i on.Ce rt ainly,some of the m os t importan tres earch( n ow descr ibed as "pure") was don e  with
a ppl icati onsimmediate lyin min d.For ex ample,  Newt on ian p hysic s al way shad the go a l  of  calc ul atin g artil lery
trajectories. Nuc lear physicshad  the g oa lso fe ner gy / wea p o ns. Probability 
theory, o pe r at ions resea r ch,  a nd most  of our  mode r n compu tationalinfrastru ct urec a medirectly f rom peop le trying to do ap plied  wo rk. No nl ine ar
wa ve equ a tio ns, t o disc us s a ni che e xa mple I k now well, are primarily 
motiv atedbyapplicati ons inphotonics .

I 'm very we llawa re of  th e  many  ane c do tes of ve ry p u re resear c htur n i ng  out to
beu s e ful  late r.B ut the re a re also a huge nu m ber of anecdot es o f pur e
r e sear ch  being directl y m ot i v ated bypr oviding the oretical  j u stifi cation 
for/a nalysis o fa pplied  wor k.
So I don 'tse e  any co mp el l ing re ason  t o beli eve yo u r un s u pported assertio ns.
~ ~ ~
ssi v ark 
Here  a re a co u pleof example s:

1\. Qua ntum m echa nicswas nev er  motiv ate dwith the t h ought ofsemic onducto rs 
(th ere fore c ompu t i ng te chno lo gy) . If
reshaping products_of science_arise in pure, not
applied,_research.

Quote: "Second,_when_science is_not_steered to solve_such problems, it_tends
to go off half-cocked_in ways that_can_be highly detrimental to science
itself."

Also contradicted by history. As just one example, the success_of_Bell Labs
over_the_decades_resulted, not from a focus_on solving particular problems,
but a_focus on_research for the sake of research -- pure_science.

The_author of the_article raises an alarm about a supposed scientific crisis,
and_eventually reveals what he thinks is_the source of_the_problem_-- a waste
of scientific_talent spent on pure research. He_needs to read the history of
science_with an open mind.

Quote: "It was military_purchases that kept the new transistor,_semiconductor,
and integrated-circuit industries afloat in_the early_and mid-1950s."

That's true, but it's_misleading because the_development of_the transistor at
Bell_Labs wasn't an applied science project,_it resulted from_pure research in
materials science and physics.

The_author_isn't reporting on_the_state_of science,_he's complaining that_it's
not_what he_thinks_it should be, in a way_that_stands at odds with science's
history.

~~~
yummyfajitas
I think your_claims require a bit_more_backing than mere assertion._Certainly,
some of the most important_research (now described as "pure") was_done with
applications_immediately in_mind.

For example, Newtonian physics always had the goal of calculating artillery
trajectories._Nuclear physics had the goals of_energy/weapons. Probability
theory, operations research,_and most_of_our modern computational
infrastructure_came_directly from_people trying to do applied work. Nonlinear
wave_equations, to_discuss a niche example I know_well, are primarily
motivated by_applications_in photonics.

I'm very well aware of_the many anecdotes of very pure_research turning out to
be useful_later._But_there are also a huge_number of anecdotes of pure
research being_directly motivated by_providing theoretical justification
for/analysis of applied work.

So I_don't_see any compelling reason to believe_your_unsupported assertions.

~~~
ssivark
Here are a couple of_examples:

1\._Quantum_mechanics was never motivated with_the thought of semiconductors
(therefore computing technology)._If