>>139293
> Scientists must be optimists at heart, in order to block out the incessant chorus of those who say "It cannot be done."
TED:
87. Science and technology provide the most important
examples of surrogate activities. Some scientists claim
that they are motivated by “curiosity” or by a desire to “be-
nefit humanity.” But it is easy to see that neither of these
can be the principal motive of most scientists. As for “cu-
riosity,” that notion is simply absurd. Most scientists work
on highly specialized problems that are not the object of
any normal curiosity. For example, is an astronomer, a ma-
thematician or an entomologist curious about the proper-
ties of isopropyltrimethylmethane? Of course not. Only a
chemist is curious about such a thing, and he is curious
about it only because chemistry is his surrogate activity.
Is the chemist curious about the appropriate classification
of a new species of beetle? No. That question is of interest
only to the entomologist, and he is interested in it only be-
cause entomology is his surrogate activity. If the chemist
and the entomologist had to exert themselves seriously to
obtain the physical necessities, and if that effort exerci-
sed their abilities in an interesting way but in some nons-
cientific pursuit, then they wouldn’t give a damn about
isopropyltrimethylmethane or the classification of beetles.
Suppose that lack of funds for postgraduate education had
led the chemist to become an insurance broker instead of
a chemist. In that case he would have been very interested
in insurance matters but would have cared nothing about
isopropyltrimethylmethane. In any case it is not normal to
put into the satisfaction of mere curiosity the amount of
time and effort that scientists put into their work. The “cu-
riosity” explanation for the scientists’ motive just doesn’t
stand up.
88. The “benefit of humanity” explanation doesn’t work
any better. Some scientific work has no conceivable rela-
tion to the welfare of the human race most of archaeo-
logy or comparative linguistics for example. Some other
areas of science present obviously dangerous possibilities.
Yet scientists in these areas are just as enthusiastic about
their work as those who develop vaccines or study air pol-
lution. Consider the case of Dr. Edward Teller, who had
an obvious emotional involvement in promoting nuclear
power plants. Did this involvement stem from a desire
to benefit humanity? If so, then why didn’t Dr. Teller get
emotional about other “humanitarian” causes? If he was
such a humanitarian then why did he help to develop the
H-bomb? As with many other scientific achievements, it is
very much open to question whether nuclear power plants
actually do benefit humanity. Does the cheap electricity
outweigh the accumulating waste and the risk of acci-
dents? Dr. Teller saw only one side of the question. Clearly
his emotional involvement with nuclear power arose not
from a desire to “benefit humanity” but from a personal
fulfillment he got from his work and from seeing it put to
practical use.
89. The same is true of scientists generally...
90. Of course, it’s not that simple. Other motives do play
a role for many scientists. Money and status for example.
Some scientists may be persons of the type who have an
insatiable drive for status (see paragraph 79) and this may
provide much of the motivation for their work. No doubt
the majority of scientists, like the majority of the general
population, are more or less susceptible to advertising and
marketing techniques and need money to satisfy their cra-
ving for goods and services. Thus science is not a PURE
surrogate activity. But it is in large part a surrogate acti-
vity.
92. Thus science marches on blindly, without regard
to the real welfare of the human race or to any other
standard, obedient only to the psychological needs of the
scientists and of the government of ficials and corporation
executives who provide the funds for research.