Obsession with information

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

We seem to be obsessed with acquiring more and more information about something or the other. 

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/04/13/world/esa-jupiter-juice-mission-launch-scn/index.html

What is the use of all these minute details about Jupiter or its moons or distant galaxies or black holes millions of light years away? So much of money is being spent on all these missions which can be better used elsewhere.

Intellectual needs can be as compelling as other needs and should be controlled the same way we control other needs. Principle of diminishing returns is valid here also.

Cheers.

Sriram

[Sebastian Toe]

Hi everyone,

We seem to be obsessed with acquiring more and more information about something or the other. 

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/04/13/world/esa-jupiter-juice-mission-launch-scn/index.html

What is the use of all these minute details about Jupiter or its moons or distant galaxies or black holes millions of light years away? So much of money is being spent on all these missions which can be better used elsewhere.

Intellectual needs can be as compelling as other needs and should be controlled the same way we control other needs. Principle of diminishing returns is valid here also.

Cheers.

Sriram

You seem to be quite happy to add information to this board when you find something to promote one of your pet subjects!

Thus proving your point?

[ProfessorDavey]

Hi everyone,

We seem to be obsessed with acquiring more and more information about something or the other. 

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/04/13/world/esa-jupiter-juice-mission-launch-scn/index.html

What is the use of all these minute details about Jupiter or its moons or distant galaxies or black holes millions of light years away? So much of money is being spent on all these missions which can be better used elsewhere.

Intellectual needs can be as compelling as other needs and should be controlled the same way we control other needs. Principle of diminishing returns is valid here also.

Cheers.

Sriram

Being inquisitive is, I imagine, an evolutionarily determined component of the human species. So it is hardly surprising the people want to understand stuff and find out more.

Putting the issue of money aside, how on earth can you dismiss truing to understand the most fundamental aspects of our universe as 'diminishing returns' - surely there cannot be anything more fundamental for us to understand.

And back too money - sure we could spend the money spent on astronomy on other things, but you could make that argument for all sorts of other things, such as art, culture and ... err ... religion. But in the great scheme of things this money is a tiny, tiny drop in the ocean of the global economy and from my perspective understanding these fundamental issues is something we should spend money on as there are some things that transcend the hum-drum and every day. But also the knowledge we gain and the technological advances needed fold back into improving our own lives in many, many ways.

[ad_orientem]

I find space fascinating. I don't buy the argument that we don't really get much from it, therefore we shouldn't waste money on it. Just isn't true

[Sriram]

Being inquisitive is, I imagine, an evolutionarily determined component of the human species. So it is hardly surprising the people want to understand stuff and find out more.

Putting the issue of money aside, how on earth can you dismiss truing to understand the most fundamental aspects of our universe as 'diminishing returns' - surely there cannot be anything more fundamental for us to understand.

And back too money - sure we could spend the money spent on astronomy on other things, but you could make that argument for all sorts of other things, such as art, culture and ... err ... religion. But in the great scheme of things this money is a tiny, tiny drop in the ocean of the global economy and from my perspective understanding these fundamental issues is something we should spend money on as there are some things that transcend the hum-drum and every day. But also the knowledge we gain and the technological advances needed fold back into improving our own lives in many, many ways.

Being inquisitive has its positive and negative sides.  There is no end to this type of microscopic information gathering. We need to know when to stop and ask ourselves whether all this information is really required and of what use it is. 

[jeremyp]

Being inquisitive has its positive and negative sides.  There is no end to this type of microscopic information gathering. We need to know when to stop and ask ourselves whether all this information is really required and of what use it is.

Sorry but ignorance is not a virtue.

[ProfessorDavey]

Sorry but ignorance is not a virtue.

Absolutely and there have been times in the past, and indeed in the present, when authoritarian regimes have tried to quash the desire to extend our understanding, to quash our inherent inquisitiveness. Didn't go well for either individuals with a thirst to learn and find out more, nor for humanity within those societies.

[ProfessorDavey]

Being inquisitive has its positive and negative sides.

Not really - understanding more is basically always positive although I accept that how we use that knowledge can have positive or negative consequences, but that is a different matter. However the worst thing is managed ignorance, where people are forced to accept explanations that are not true and denied the ability to actually find out the truth. 

There is no end to this type of microscopic information gathering. We need to know when to stop and ask ourselves whether all this information is really required and of what use it is.

So who decides when we have to stop. Who decides when we know enough and does that apply to everything or are there some things we can carry on researching while other areas are banned (cos we know enough). Who makes those decisions and what are the consequences if someone carries on researching in an area where it is deemed that we know enough. Sounds horribly authoritarian to me.

[Nearly Sane]

Not really - understanding more is basically always positive although I accept that how we use that knowledge can have positive or negative consequences, but that is a different matter. However the worst thing is managed ignorance, where people are forced to accept explanations that are not true and denied the ability to actually find out the truth. 
So who decides when we have to stop. Who decides when we know enough and does that apply to everything or are there some things we can carry on researching while other areas are banned (cos we know enough). Who makes those decisions and what are the consequences if someone carries on researching in an area where it is deemed that we know enough. Sounds horribly authoritarian to me.

And it oddly assumes an omniscience over what is worth knowing, and what should be known. As you note use of knowledge might be seen as  good or bad but without the knowledge of it how could one 'know' what any outcomes might be.

[ProfessorDavey]

And it oddly assumes an omniscience over what is worth knowing, and what should be known. As you note use of knowledge might be seen as  good or bad but without the knowledge of it how could one 'know' what any outcomes might be.

The notion that someone has control over what we are allowed to know is, frankly, terrifying.

[Udayana]

Being inquisitive has its positive and negative sides.  There is no end to this type of microscopic information gathering. We need to know when to stop and ask ourselves whether all this information is really required and of what use it is.

From your perspective of "a direction and purpose" for life, what do you think it would be other than to gather information and know stuff?

In the meantime, from the perspective of "shit... well here we are" ... surely we may as well have a good nose around?

[jeremyp]

The notion that someone has control over what we are allowed to know is, frankly, terrifying.

Not if it's me.

Well, it might still be terrifying to you, but definitely not to me.

[ProfessorDavey]

Not if it's me.

Well, it might still be terrifying to you, but definitely not to me.

But it is very, very unlikely to be you.

It's a bit like the argument about an absolute dictatorship - no-one agrees ... unless it is them

Actually I think I'd be pretty terrified at being the sole determinant of what people are and are not allowed to know. And it would be hugely onerous anyhow as to be able to do the job you'd need to know yourself everything that is know to be able to determine whether people should be allowed to know it.

[Sriram]

I have not suggested that some one person or Govt. will decide what we should know. That is nonsense. I am talking about the futility of trying to understand minute details of things that are of no use to anyone as far as we can see. 

Controlling our need for information is about knowing what is worth knowing and what is not.  There are infinite bits of information out there about all sorts of things. Getting carried away by a need and getting trapped in an endless quest for information is what I am talking about.

[Nearly Sane]

I have not suggested that some one person or Govt. will decide what we should know. That is nonsense. I am talking about the futility of trying to understand minute details of things that are of no use to anyone as far as we can see. 

Controlling our need for information is about knowing what is worth knowing and what is not.  There are infinite bits of information out there about all sorts of things. Getting carried away by a need and getting trapped in an endless quest for information is what I am talking about.

What is 'worth knowing'? And without knowing it how can you tell if something is 'worth knowing'?

[Sriram]

What is 'worth knowing'? And without knowing it how can you tell if something is 'worth knowing'?

You are tying yourself up in knots NS....

[ProfessorDavey]

You are tying yourself up in knots NS....

No he isn't.

The point is that you cannot know what new knowledge might or might not be useful until you actually have that knowledge.

And we should not, of course, simply restrict knowledge to that which is or may not be useful. Knowledge gained purely for its own sake is incredibly powerful and important within the human psyche.

[Nearly Sane]

You are tying yourself up in knots NS....

Writes the person who, it seems, cannot answer.

[jeremyp]

You are tying yourself up in knots NS....

From here it looks like he is tying you up in knots.

[splashscuba]

It is SOP for those who wish to have power over others to restrict (or subvert) knowledge to the masses. It's how they exert control.

Learning about our immmediate universe is such an amazing thing. It gives us insight into our own existance.

Pretty good way to spend money on this rather than on the billions spent on quackery.

[Sriram]

There is a difference between information and knowledge. All information does not lead to knowledge. Knowledge expands our mind and vision. Mere information is like data dumped into a computer with no idea as to how it is to be processed.

[Sebastian Toe]

There is a difference between information and knowledge. All information does not lead to knowledge. Knowledge expands our mind and vision. Mere information is like data dumped into a computer with no idea as to how it is to be processed.

Could you give an example of the mere information that you are talking about