1,165
edits
Difference between revisions of "Science Since Babylon"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→6. The Difference Beteween Science and Technology
m (→References) |
|||
| Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
== 6. The Difference Beteween Science and Technology == | == 6. The Difference Beteween Science and Technology == | ||
===Summary=== | ===Summary=== | ||
===Quotes=== | |||
* "Do we really have to stoop so low as to lie about it again and maintain that the latest, biggest accelerator will help us make useful things? Do we need to support mathematics for the direct utility? No, not at all. We can adopt a science-for-science’s-sake policy, provided we are clear that this can always be justified by the weak but vital link with technology. We need science so that technologists may grow up immersed in it. I do not avoid the intellectual argument that we also do it because it is the most difficult and elegant thing we can do. Like Everest it is there. The question of justification only becomes important because we ask that society pay for it, and there must therefore be some sort of social contract. Some reason must exist for society to pay; in our age, if you spend on that you must go without something else. The tradition of ''libertas philosophandi'', the freedom to follow learning wherever it may lead, is now questioned yet again in the way in which it was questioned by the ancient Romans, by the French | |||
revolutionaries, and most recently by communist Hungary. They all thought they could junk useless sciences and pay | |||
only for the useful ones. Their civilizations and states were visibly ruined by this tragic policy. It cannot be played like that. The reason is the educational process." p 131-132 | |||
===References=== | ===References=== | ||