Hungry shrimp eat climate change experiment

[Elder Iptuous]

Because applied scienticians have stars on their bellies. 


for seriousness, iawy

[Vene]

What this shows is that even an experiment that failed in one sense can have interesting and useful results.

Applied Science rendered Pure through the refining fire of failure!

My point exactly.

Question: Why is it that we have to separate both pure and applied science? Why is it that applied science doesn't lead to pure science more often? Why is it that one or the other is looked down upon? Is it because people in "pure science" are seen as sitting in ivory towers, and that people in "applied science" are seen as amoral greedy businessmen?

From what I see, the one should lead to the other, and vice versa, and back and forth. Questions and systems both drive just as strongly, why not creative and applied inquiry?

Simple answer, because we're monkeys.

But, I do see things the same way.  Applied science figures out how the world around us works, and pure science leads to the knowledge needed for applied science to work.  Both are needed.

[Kai]

What this shows is that even an experiment that failed in one sense can have interesting and useful results.

Applied Science rendered Pure through the refining fire of failure!

My point exactly.

Question: Why is it that we have to separate both pure and applied science? Why is it that applied science doesn't lead to pure science more often? Why is it that one or the other is looked down upon? Is it because people in "pure science" are seen as sitting in ivory towers, and that people in "applied science" are seen as amoral greedy businessmen?

From what I see, the one should lead to the other, and vice versa, and back and forth. Questions and systems both drive just as strongly, why not creative and applied inquiry?

Simple answer, because we're monkeys.

But, I do see things the same way.  Applied science figures out how the world around us works, and pure science leads to the knowledge needed for applied science to work.  Both are needed.

No, pure science figures out the way the world works, and applied science puts it to task for human use.

What I was asking was, why doesn't applied science lead to pure science questions more often? Why is pure science considered the stuff of universities and applied science considered the stuff of buisnessmen and engineers? Why don't applied science questions and systems flow into the queues of pure science? Why does there have to be this dichotomy?

[Vene]

Kai, just out of curiosity, what's the line between applied science and engineering?

[Kai]

Kai, just out of curiosity, what's the line between applied science and engineering?

There isn't one. Engineering is a type of applied science.

[Elder Iptuous]

I don't really think there is a dichotomy.  at least not some enforced one.  they don't drink from separate fountains or anything.  Business R&D does pure science in large corporations.  In electrical engineering, (my field) there is a good interplay between the two.  the industry hits a wall and the universities etc. tackle the issues in a nice concert that leads to advancement and general understanding.... 
just because we have terminology to delineate the two doesn't put them at odds with each other really.

[Kai]

I don't really think there is a dichotomy.  at least not some enforced one.  they don't drink from separate fountains or anything.  Business R&D does pure science in large corporations.  In electrical engineering, (my field) there is a good interplay between the two.  the industry hits a wall and the universities etc. tackle the issues in a nice concert that leads to advancement and general understanding.... 
just because we have terminology to delineate the two doesn't put them at odds with each other really.

There's definitely this preconceived notion that they're at odds, even if they really aren't, and it influences peoples behavior.