

Why are scientists satisfied with studying existing artifacts rather than creating their own? - amichail

Scientists are some of the smartest and most ambitious people around.<p>And yet many are satisfied with studying and explaining existing phenomena rather than inventing new things.<p>For example, why is it rewarding to study the messy artifacts of evolution?  Isn't it more rewarding to use evolution for your own purposes to create an artificial intelligence for example?<p>Even computer science is like that.  Many computer scientists devote their time to studying other people's inventions (e.g., social networking, blogging, tagging, etc.).  Why is that rewarding?
======
sundarurfriend
Your question is based upon an assumption that 'inventing new things' is
inherently better than 'studying and explaining existing phenomena'. It might
feel so to you, but it is not an absolute truth. Some people (like me) like to
explore the vast wonders of nature rather than create an imperfect object that
tries to mimic the perfection of nature (most inventions fall under this
category).

It's not a question of right or wrong or superiority or inferiority. To each,
his/her own.

And it's not about 'creativity' as another commenter explains either. Science,
the art(!) of coming up with generalisations and laws expalining a vast array
of phenomena calls for a lot of creativity. The top notch people in every
field are there because they are creative. Creative in coming up with new
mind-boggling explanations (can you get any more creative than coming up with
Quantum mechanics? :) ), thinking of new ways to measure things, thinking of
ways to put a new theory under 'stress test'.

I don't understand what you mean by "Many computer scientists devote their
time to studying other people's inventions (e.g., social networking, blogging,
tagging, etc.)" but true scientists, the 'smart and ambitious people', are
curious to understand everything. So, if they happen to be computer scientists
interesting in social networking, etc., they might find it interesting to
analyze and understand the dynamics of it; they like to tear things apart and
look at the basics.

If you ask for the 'social' utility of it, I could say such analyses form the
basis of "inventing new things", but that's actually not the point; the
scientists do it for their own curiosity. Just like you would feel rewarding
to create an AI, they feel it rewarding to analyze it and understanding
completely.

>Why is that rewarding?

This question, IMHO, is inappropriate - things are rewarding because they are.
Each one is born differently, grows up differently and has different mindsets.
There's no absolute measure on what 'must be' rewarding and what 'must not
be'.

------
thisrod
Scientists have created the most beautiful and useful artifacts ever made.
Think "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica", "On The Origin of
Species by Means of Natural Selection", "The Nature of the Chemical Bond", and
"The Principles of Quantum Mechanics". Unfortunately, most people are too dumb
and lazy to appreciate them.

Picture Francis Crick, putting down his pen after writing, "It has not escaped
the attention of the authors that this structure suggests a mechanism for
replication."

------
asciilifeform
The reason for this is that most people (pretty much regardless of profession)
are biologically incapable of creativity.

Neither intelligence nor ambition can substitute for it. You either have it,
or you don't - and if you don't, you can't even conceive of what creativity
_is_. You will see all sorts of _not-even-wrong_ essays explaining creativity,
written by people who have none, and don't believe that they are missing
anything.

