I recently watched a television program in which a group of scientists

4/10, was mildly annoyed.

>>8137106
>I'll tell you what I think. It's because science isn't concerned with knowledge - knowledge is power and there was no power to be gained by this - it's concerned with destroying all mystery in the universe.

No, it's because scientists are selfish.
They evaluate the need to satisfy their curiosity as higher than the need to let things be.

>>8137130
>selfish
sure

>>8137156
are you trying to make a point?

>>8137163
most of them arent selfish

>>8137168
I'm pretty sure they are.
As I said, satisfying their curiosity is very important to them.

Monitoring nature is kind of important for conservation dude.

>>8137173
yes, thats being curious. pretty important when you are a scientist

Science is a story, just like everything. Part of the story is seeing how things change. Measuring a bunch of snakes once doesn't tell you how they are changing.

See that's the part of the process you don't get because you are a Platonist: The world is always changing, so our stories have to change with it or they won't be useful to be believed. Instead of just making up shit and believing it, like most people do, scientists at least go out and check every once and a while.
You should try it.

>>8137106
In 3016, 1000 years from now scientists will have a device that can map anything down to sub atomic particles. However, anything mapped will be completely destroyed.

Of course, the most logical thing to do is to map everything. For science!

>>8137177
so you agree with me. And since it's their job to be curious, they are selfish because they make others and the environment pay for their curiosity.

>>8137176
not OP, but I think they could have used cameras, GPS and other tech tools, couldn't they? so why even go there? why do you need to be in that place to "observe" nature, and why do you have to be close tot he animals? won't they change their behavior right after contacting a human being?

>>8137417
rightfully so

>>8137762
>I'm curious so I have a right to your money

check your privilege

>>8137117
I'm more than annoyed, because people with attitudes like this end up on budget committees which deny science funding

With people like OP, I always wonder where they would draw the line we shouldt cross.

Would they still favor "leavings things alone" without their computers, without a cure for a horrible desease or without answers for the most basic questions about the world around us?

>>8138454

Deal with it cocksucker.

>>8138429
No it's more like, i get payed to be curious for myself/others which also helps many, many people in the long term.

>>8137532
That's costly and less effective.
You can't determine the length of an animal with a camera, and you can't tell which is which for calculating the population.