From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.5 required=5.0 tests=DATE_IN_PAST_12_24, LOCALPART_IN_SUBJECT,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 12212 invoked from network); 30 Jan 2023 20:11:47 -0000 Received: from smtp2.mta.ca (198.164.44.75) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 30 Jan 2023 20:11:47 -0000 Received: from rr.mta.ca ([198.164.44.159]:40422) by smtp2.mta.ca with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1pMaV7-0000qe-I6; Mon, 30 Jan 2023 16:11:37 -0400 Received: from majordomo by rr.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.92.1) (envelope-from ) id 1pMaU7-0005zE-EK for categories-list@rr.mta.ca; Mon, 30 Jan 2023 16:10:35 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2023 19:16:39 -0400 From: dawson To: categories list Subject: categories: Re: Terminology for point-free topology? In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dawson Message-Id: Patrik Eklund wrote: > But my view is that we must keep "real-world applicability" > at least as a "general burden" in the sense > that all science must useful, in one way or another. > Science should never be just "aus liebe zur Kunst". You should, of course, follow your own ethical guidance, but I respectfully disagree that "we" must do so. Most of us agree that a painting or a novel can be beautiful without having an improving message, that fine wine is worthwhile even if its health benefits are dubious, etc. Why should science be required to clear a utilitarian bar that other fields of human endeavour do not? Surely the onus is on anybody making such a claim to prove it. Secondly, supposing [purely for the sake of argument!] that science (oddly and uniquely) has no value except its utility. In many cases the science that proves most useful was not obviously so when it was done. Consider, for an overused but yet valid example, the number theory of whose inutility Hardy wrote so proudly, and which now protects much of the world's electronic commerce. Thus, we can't use this as a guide to what we should study _now._ Best wishes, Robert [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]