Q&A: Criticism of studying the exact sciences
Criticism of studying the exact sciences
Question
You criticize fields of study that are not connected to the exact sciences (social sciences, philosophy, psychology, Bible).
So in the study of social sciences or Bible, it is easy to see that there is a problem with the actual material being studied, whereas in the exact sciences that is not the case.
But what is your opinion about theoretical study in the exact sciences within the natural sciences* that very often has contributed nothing to the world?
Piles upon piles of articles and researchers funded by public money that did not really advance anything in the world.
Smart people who completed a bachelor's degree, master's degree, and even a doctorate, who when they go out into the job market usually work in areas completely unrelated to what they studied.*
So what was all the research money poured out on?
Is that okay?
*Not students of applied mathematics, computer science, and engineers, who are known to actually use the knowledge they acquired in their studies
Answer
You assume that the value of studying science and doing research is technological and practical benefit. I disagree with that. Of course, you also cannot know in advance what will be useful and what will not. In the language of the Sages one could say here: a thousand enter study and one emerges to practical instruction.
Beyond that, my criticism of the nonsense sciences is not that they are not useful, but that they have no serious content and certainly nothing scientific. But even in them there are things of value, and they are definitely worth engaging in even without practical benefit.
Discussion on Answer
Intellectual value. Understanding the world and developing one’s thinking and personality. And as stated, it is impossible to know in advance what will turn out to be useful in the future.
To make things clear, let me note that I am not against theoretical study of the exact sciences.
I am in favor of it, but on the other hand I also favor cutting back the non-practical part of them, and even when theoretical subjects are studied, the student quota should be reduced.
If there are geniuses who need to devote themselves to physical, mathematical, or chemical theories—excellent!
But what happens in practice is that every year there are many hundreds of students who study lots of non-practical things, and usually not much comes of it (with all due respect to the research that is carried out and the analytical skills that are developed), and all of this is at the public’s expense.
Serious analytical ability is also developed in computer science courses. You do not need to delve into quantum mechanics for that. On the day that quantum mechanics becomes an applied subject (and that is probably not far off), great. But we are not there right now.
There is no shortage of people who completed a master’s degree in chemistry (think about the investment, time, and money) and afterward went into completely different fields. Isn’t that a shame?
There is also no shortage of people who did a degree in physics and in the end became software engineers (without the theoretical topics in the degree having made any significant contribution to that—they also would have been excellent software engineers if they had studied computer science or computer engineering)
It is better to invest in engineers (with very basic physics), applied mathematics, chemistry for development needs, and things like that, and less in theoretical subjects.
So then what is the value in studying science?