Quote:
Originally Posted by cmdahler
See, yet another benefit of getting older is a distinct (not to say utter, complete, or total) lack of concern for whether any particular opinion I hold would cause offense. Life becomes refreshingly simple at that point.
Evolution, just as an example, has zero to do with truly important science (physics, mathematics, medicine, etc.) It is a completely pointless waste of human resources to spend a dime of public money on archaeological research like this. Who cares about Lucy, and to what possible benefit can it be to know that she's 6 million years old? It's just one of those trivial, arcane bits of knowledge that make you go, "huh, imagine that." It has zero to do with curing cancer or finding a vaccine for HIV, or finally discovering a room-temperature superconducting material. In fact, I would argue that the profligate waste of time, energy, and money on what I like to call the Useless Sciences actually hinders human progress in the areas of science that actually matter by diverting funding and other resources that could be better spent elsewhere.
|
finding out about "Lucy" and others of our ancestors are CRUCIAL to discovering the causes of illnesses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardeegee
You seem to be confusing evolution with paleontology (which you are misnaming "archeology.")
Evolution has ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING to do with curing cancer, or finding a vaccine for HIV. "Evolution" is change over time leading from mutations in the genetic code-- there is nothing that can be understood about HIV or cancer that does not come through the understanding of evolution-- and that goes for every single disease, whether caused by an external organism or by flaws within the individual's genes.
(And, FWIW, genetic algorithms-- which are based on the concept of evolution-- can be used in supercomputer modeling to search for room-temperature superconductors.)
|
and you are confused about what the meaning of paleontology is. try looking it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmdahler
Truly, and that faculty of critical thinking is what leads me to the opinion that there are Useful Sciences and Useless Sciences. That's not to say I'm arguing that the Useless Sciences are wrong, just that they essentially contribute nothing to truly important human progress. Knowledge for knowledge's sake is fine when you don't have truly pressing societal problems to solve, but it's like eating out every day when you can afford to pay your credit card bill. People in school can gain all the benefits of scientific, critical thinking and still focus on the things that really matter. Wasting time on archaeology, for example, is just that: a waste. That person with all that capacity for deductive reasoning and years of education could be doing something that really benefits society, like finding a cure for my daughter's diabetes instead of wasting their life digging useless holes in the ground so tourists will have some pottery shard to look at in a museum.
|
and anthropologists did probably more for understanding diabetes than medical science when it was first discovered. this is where you study the Native populations and their blood disorders.