TED Conversations

pedro jose dos santos neto

This conversation is closed.

How does the discovery of the Higgs boson affect our real life?

Some times people in general have the feeling that the cutting-edge science does not affect the real life. I mean, how does the housewife or the cab driver are affected by researches as Higgs boson or strings theory? What is the real impact on the price of food, the school taxes or this kind of real thing and ordinary?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Nov 27 2013: Wow. I understood that this was a site for logical debate. Is it actually permissible not to share your point of view? Not really worth going into why you think I am these things. I have a point of view, and I am not intimidated by those who seek to quash debate. I use technology and medicine too. Why would anyone think otherwise? I am not sure who Eywa is. I would have to see some proof of the existence of Eywa, but I would be up for believing in it/him/her. As long as the proof didn't consist of asserting that Eywa was infinitely large, but grew in an infinitely short time from something infinitely small. That would just be silly.
    • thumb
      Nov 27 2013: Peter, there are contributors here who would rather get angry at people who disagree with them, than try to understand their point of view. And as you probably know, anger reveals inflexibility and an inability to be persuaded by alternative sides in a debate.

      I too tire of the "This is how it is - there is no alternative" kind of argument.

      There are very many others who are listening intently to what you and others are saying, and may contribute to the debate at some stage.

      Just to let you know...
      • Nov 27 2013: Thanks for that Allan, I am just feeling my feet here. I am not particularly a devil's advocate kind of person, but I am looking for lively(and open) debate.
    • thumb
      Nov 27 2013: Peter, please feel free to debate vigorously. Some participants here express their views and ask their questions in strong terms and others more gently.

      The other matter I am sure you have noticed in online exchanges is that it is easy to misunderstand other people's meaning. I interpreted your saying that science has a language of its own to mean only that the layperson is typically ill-equipped to follow discussions when scientists use the language of their discipline. For example, most people cannot follow complicated mathematical expositions, but it would be highly inefficient for particle physicists not to use mathematics in their communications with collaborators.

      I don't hear you suggesting that scientists use their mathematics as any sort of strategy to make their work inaccessible to the lay public.

      Some people may "sound" angry who are not angry at all.
    • thumb
      Nov 27 2013: please note that i discussed your views in two paragraphs, and you did not even attempt to address those. i added one sentence expressing my negative views on your anti-scientific sentiments, and you play offended since. how does that qualify as a "logical debate"? where are your counterarguments to mine?
      • Nov 27 2013: The first paragraph said something about wizards. Not anything I recognised from my part of the debate. The second rather depended on me having asserted the first. I accept the part about the good intentions of scientists. No need to elaborate on the difference between intentions and results. You would have to know me better to know if I was arrogant, and I accept my ignorance in most matters. The Physicist Arthur Eddington, When told he was only one of three people to understand the law of relativity, asked "who's the other one?" There was a man who understood the preponderance of ignorance.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.