YawnTractor_1756 t1_iv2shac wrote on November 4, 2022 at 9:09 PM

Reply to comment by atridir in ‘Carbon timebomb’: climate crisis threatens to destroy Congo peatlands by sector3011

>knowledge for the sake of knowledge

First of all 'knowledge for the sake of knowledge' is not science. Science if a specific set of specifically organized knowledge. I was discussing science, not knowledge in general.

Second, what you call 'knowledge for the sake of knowledge' is curiosity, and it is an evolutionary trait. Evolutionary is a crucial word here. It means that it has appeared and spread in the population, meaning it was practically useful for survival. The survival benefit of the trait stems from the practicality of knowing the threats as opposed to not knowing the threats. So even 'knowledge for the sake of knowledge' is a practical tool.

But majority of science is not knowledge for the sake of knowledge, but rather an investigation for practical reasons: grow food, cure disease, build house, etc.

atridir t1_iv2zt01 wrote on November 4, 2022 at 10:02 PM

Point of clarification: you were discussing the “purpose” of science and I disagreed with you on the reason not the process.

YawnTractor_1756 t1_iv3myid wrote on November 5, 2022 at 1:00 AM

And that's ok, but if we talk science specifically, it's a tool. A specific tool. And as every tool it was created for a purpose, and it was not 'knowledge for knowledge'. Technically speaking the very base of scientific method (empirical analysis and experimentation) was developed by Dominican monks to get closer to God through discovery of truth about the World, but I don't want to look like I'm preaching.

But the point still stands. We value science because of its results. Not because we like knowledge for knowledge. The latter existed since the beginning of time. Science did not exist since the beginning of time. It's an invention. A tool. For a purpose of getting 'truth' i.e. concrete, verifiable results.