What do you think?
Rate this book
The Usefulness of Useless Knowledge
A short, provocative book about why "useless" science often leads to humanity's greatest technological breakthroughs
A forty-year tightening of funding for scientific research has meant that resources are increasingly directed toward applied or practical outcomes, with the intent of creating products of immediate value. In such a scenario, it makes sense to focus on the most identifiable and urgent problems, right? Actually, it doesn't. In his classic essay "The Usefulness of Useless Knowledge," Abraham Flexner, the founding director of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton and the man who helped bring Albert Einstein to the United States, describes a great paradox of scientific research. The search for answers to deep questions, motivated solely by curiosity and without concern for applications, often leads not only to the greatest scientific discoveries but also to the most revolutionary technological breakthroughs. In short, no quantum mechanics, no computer chips.
This brief book includes Flexner's timeless 1939 essay alongside a new companion essay by Robbert Dijkgraaf, the Institute's current director, in which he shows that Flexner's defense of the value of "the unobstructed pursuit of useless knowledge" may be even more relevant today than it was in the early twentieth century. Dijkgraaf describes how basic research has led to major transformations in the past century and explains why it is an essential precondition of innovation and the first step in social and cultural change. He makes the case that society can achieve deeper understanding and practical progress today and tomorrow only by truly valuing and substantially funding the curiosity-driven "pursuit of useless knowledge" in both the sciences and the humanities.
A forty-year tightening of funding for scientific research has meant that resources are increasingly directed toward applied or practical outcomes, with the intent of creating products of immediate value. In such a scenario, it makes sense to focus on the most identifiable and urgent problems, right? Actually, it doesn't. In his classic essay "The Usefulness of Useless Knowledge," Abraham Flexner, the founding director of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton and the man who helped bring Albert Einstein to the United States, describes a great paradox of scientific research. The search for answers to deep questions, motivated solely by curiosity and without concern for applications, often leads not only to the greatest scientific discoveries but also to the most revolutionary technological breakthroughs. In short, no quantum mechanics, no computer chips.
This brief book includes Flexner's timeless 1939 essay alongside a new companion essay by Robbert Dijkgraaf, the Institute's current director, in which he shows that Flexner's defense of the value of "the unobstructed pursuit of useless knowledge" may be even more relevant today than it was in the early twentieth century. Dijkgraaf describes how basic research has led to major transformations in the past century and explains why it is an essential precondition of innovation and the first step in social and cultural change. He makes the case that society can achieve deeper understanding and practical progress today and tomorrow only by truly valuing and substantially funding the curiosity-driven "pursuit of useless knowledge" in both the sciences and the humanities.
104 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1939
67 people are currently reading
1981 people want to read
About the author
Abraham Flexner
73 books17 followersCritical report of American educator Abraham Flexner on American and Canadian medical schools in 1910 resulted in a sweeping reform.
People best know his role in the 20th century of higher education in the United States.
After founding and directing a college-preparatory school in his hometown, Flexner in 1908 published a critical assessment of the state of the American educational system, titled The American College: A Criticism . His work attracted the Carnegie foundation to commission an evaluation in depth into 155 colleges and universities across the United States and Canada. His resultant self-titled Flexner Report , published in 1910, sparked reform in the United States. Flexner also founded the institute for advanced study, which in Princeton brought together some of the greatest minds in history to collaborate on intellectual discovery and research.
People best know his role in the 20th century of higher education in the United States.
After founding and directing a college-preparatory school in his hometown, Flexner in 1908 published a critical assessment of the state of the American educational system, titled The American College: A Criticism . His work attracted the Carnegie foundation to commission an evaluation in depth into 155 colleges and universities across the United States and Canada. His resultant self-titled Flexner Report , published in 1910, sparked reform in the United States. Flexner also founded the institute for advanced study, which in Princeton brought together some of the greatest minds in history to collaborate on intellectual discovery and research.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 108 reviews
December 4, 2018
This is a fascinating paper about the importance of curiosity in fundamental discoveries. The pursuit of utility limits human curiosity and the freedom of scientists to explore. Flexner believed that scientists should not be bothered to produce utility but instead pursue problems out of sheer curiosity and eventually utility could be derived from their findings. He also pleads for the abolition of the word 'Use' when it comes to fundamental science. He believes that scientists should be free to focus on the problems that they find interesting without needing to worry about the immediate applicability of their discoveries. Science should be made for the sheer purpose of satisfying one’s curiosity.
"Thus it becomes obvious that one must be wary in attributing scientific discovery wholly to anyone person."
Almost all scientific discoveries are the fruition of the work of multiple people along several decades.
- Gauss’s “Non-Euclidian Geometry” seemingly had no practical application at the time. His work was essential to Einstein’s work on relativity without which we would not have satellites orbiting the earth today.
From Gauss to Einstein, to the practical use of satellites several centuries went by. This is one of the great examples that goes to show that major advancements in science, although they seem not to have immediate applicability, are able to completely change human lives several decades later.
- This paper was written in 1939 previous to the launch of the atomic bombs on August 6 and 9 of 1945. The atomic bomb was developed by a team of scientists, amongst the brightest minds at the time.
This is a very interesting video of Feynman discussing the "morality" of his contributions to the 'The Manhattan Project':
(Click on this image to watch the video)
"Thus it becomes obvious that one must be wary in attributing scientific discovery wholly to anyone person."
Almost all scientific discoveries are the fruition of the work of multiple people along several decades.
- Gauss’s “Non-Euclidian Geometry” seemingly had no practical application at the time. His work was essential to Einstein’s work on relativity without which we would not have satellites orbiting the earth today.
From Gauss to Einstein, to the practical use of satellites several centuries went by. This is one of the great examples that goes to show that major advancements in science, although they seem not to have immediate applicability, are able to completely change human lives several decades later.
- This paper was written in 1939 previous to the launch of the atomic bombs on August 6 and 9 of 1945. The atomic bomb was developed by a team of scientists, amongst the brightest minds at the time.
This is a very interesting video of Feynman discussing the "morality" of his contributions to the 'The Manhattan Project':
(Click on this image to watch the video)
June 22, 2018
Kişisel fayda yerine merak duygusuyla, bilimsel hazla ve öğrenme isteğiyle elde edilen bilginin daha doğru sonuçlar verdiğini anlatan, bana da yanlış yolda olduğumu hatırlatan bir kitap oldu.
Marconi örneği çarpıcı bir örnekti. Radyonun mucidi olarak bilinen Marconi hazıra konanlardanmış. Ama bu yolda yapılmış zor hesaplama ve deneylerden başarıyla çıkmış bilim insanları Maxwell ve Hertz imiş. Bu iki şahsiyet merak duygusu ve bilimsel hazla gerçekleştiriyorlarmış yaptıklarını. Ne var ki, onların yaptıkları üzerinden kişisel çıkar sağlayan Marconi imiş.
Anlatılmak isteneni ya da karşı çıkılan noktayı, biraz da, okuma alışkanlığının zevkle değil de fayda sağlayacak umuduyla yapılması gerektiğine olan inanca benzetebiliriz..
Marconi örneği çarpıcı bir örnekti. Radyonun mucidi olarak bilinen Marconi hazıra konanlardanmış. Ama bu yolda yapılmış zor hesaplama ve deneylerden başarıyla çıkmış bilim insanları Maxwell ve Hertz imiş. Bu iki şahsiyet merak duygusu ve bilimsel hazla gerçekleştiriyorlarmış yaptıklarını. Ne var ki, onların yaptıkları üzerinden kişisel çıkar sağlayan Marconi imiş.
Anlatılmak isteneni ya da karşı çıkılan noktayı, biraz da, okuma alışkanlığının zevkle değil de fayda sağlayacak umuduyla yapılması gerektiğine olan inanca benzetebiliriz..
May 15, 2017
Firstly, I found it difficult to get into Dijkgraaf's commentary, having not read the original essay, nor knowing a good deal of the knowledge Dijkgraaf takes for granted (what can I say? I grew up reading classics and romance novels, not analyses of the world post World War II. Previous to that I'm reasonably (or quite, depending on the time period), knowledgable).
Flexner's essay, however, is wonderful. It's interspersed with short examples of knowledge or technology we take as useful (for instance, the radio), but points to the very necessary, "useless" knowledge that came before; the reams of theory produced by scientists over the ages and then compiled into one ingenious device by Marconi.
The essay is still relevant today (the entire point of Dijkgraaf's commentary, in addition to filling out this little booklet), and has a remarkably friendly feel. The difference in writing style over the decades is felt (even with a sample size of two). Dijkgraaf's writing seems to me much more "useful" (that is, more direct and economical), and therefore somewhat less enchanting.
Flexner's essay, however, is wonderful. It's interspersed with short examples of knowledge or technology we take as useful (for instance, the radio), but points to the very necessary, "useless" knowledge that came before; the reams of theory produced by scientists over the ages and then compiled into one ingenious device by Marconi.
The essay is still relevant today (the entire point of Dijkgraaf's commentary, in addition to filling out this little booklet), and has a remarkably friendly feel. The difference in writing style over the decades is felt (even with a sample size of two). Dijkgraaf's writing seems to me much more "useful" (that is, more direct and economical), and therefore somewhat less enchanting.
July 6, 2018
Flexner Amerikan eğitim sistemine ve genel olarak bilime katkıları çok büyük olan birisi. Princeton'da kurduğu İleri Araştırmalar Enstitüsünde sadece "merak" ve "istek" ile bir sürü ünlü bilim insanını toplayıp bilime katkılarda bulundu. Bu küçük kitabında da bu dertlerini nasıl bir motivasyonla yaptığını özetlemekte. Kitabın kendisi küçük ama içindeki fikirler epey büyük ve etkileyici.
Faydasız diye ifade ettiği bilgi türü sayesinde modern dünyada uçaklarımız ve bir sürü teknolojik yeniliğimiz var.
Flexner bir çok politikacı ve bilim insanının görmezden geldiği bir noktaya dikkat çekiyor: zihinlere gerçek anlamda bir sınır konmazsa o zaman bir ilerleme mümkün olur!
Faydasız diye ifade ettiği bilgi türü sayesinde modern dünyada uçaklarımız ve bir sürü teknolojik yeniliğimiz var.
Flexner bir çok politikacı ve bilim insanının görmezden geldiği bir noktaya dikkat çekiyor: zihinlere gerçek anlamda bir sınır konmazsa o zaman bir ilerleme mümkün olur!
June 4, 2020
For those who care about curiosity, learning, and flourishing, this is certainly worth a read, especially given its short length. The two pieces each offer something different. Flexner's essay, for which the volume is named, makes a good case for "useless knowledge", pointing towards how much of our useful things in the present are predicated upon the useless knowledge. And of course, hearing of his experiences working to sculpt the Institute for Advanced Study left me with good feels about the joy that learning and discovery can bring to the soul. Dijkgraaf's preface was also a good paired read. As the current director of the IAS, he sheds light on the historical context of Flexner's work and shows us how that work has blossomed into the world we know today.
One thought I'm left with is that the success America has seen in the past half-century is owed in large part to 1) the encouragement of pursuing knowledge for knowledge's sake and 2) the pooling of scholars and researchers of varied nationalities, faiths, backgrounds, etc. In a world where we are growing increasingly focused on efficiency and protectionism, this work is a good reminder that in the practices of play, discovery, and vulnerability, we can together produce a world worth protecting and defending.
Some quotes I really enjoyed:
"As physicist Robert Wilson would testify in a 1969 congressional hearing about the possible Cold War use of the Fermilab particle accelerator, "This new knowledge has all to do with honor and country, but it has nothing to do directly with defending our country, except to help make it worth defending".
"The real enemy of the human race is not the fearless and irresponsible thinker, be he right or wrong. The real enemy is the man who tries to mold the human spirit so that it will not dare to spread its wings."
"Ehrlich made his way precariously through the medical curriculum and ultimately procured his degree mainly because it was obvious to his teachers that he had no intention of ever putting his medical degree to practical use." (Terry Pratchett vibes)
"Over a period of one or two hundred years the contributions of professional schools to their respective activities will probably be found to lie, not so much in the training of men who may tomorrow become practical engineers or practical lawyers or practical doctors, but rather in the fact that even in the pursuit of strictly practical aims an enormous amount of apparently useless activity goes on. Out of this useless activity there come discoveries which may well prove of infinitely more importance to the human mind and to the human spirit than the accomplishment of the useful ends for which the schools were founded."
One thought I'm left with is that the success America has seen in the past half-century is owed in large part to 1) the encouragement of pursuing knowledge for knowledge's sake and 2) the pooling of scholars and researchers of varied nationalities, faiths, backgrounds, etc. In a world where we are growing increasingly focused on efficiency and protectionism, this work is a good reminder that in the practices of play, discovery, and vulnerability, we can together produce a world worth protecting and defending.
Some quotes I really enjoyed:
"As physicist Robert Wilson would testify in a 1969 congressional hearing about the possible Cold War use of the Fermilab particle accelerator, "This new knowledge has all to do with honor and country, but it has nothing to do directly with defending our country, except to help make it worth defending".
"The real enemy of the human race is not the fearless and irresponsible thinker, be he right or wrong. The real enemy is the man who tries to mold the human spirit so that it will not dare to spread its wings."
"Ehrlich made his way precariously through the medical curriculum and ultimately procured his degree mainly because it was obvious to his teachers that he had no intention of ever putting his medical degree to practical use." (Terry Pratchett vibes)
"Over a period of one or two hundred years the contributions of professional schools to their respective activities will probably be found to lie, not so much in the training of men who may tomorrow become practical engineers or practical lawyers or practical doctors, but rather in the fact that even in the pursuit of strictly practical aims an enormous amount of apparently useless activity goes on. Out of this useless activity there come discoveries which may well prove of infinitely more importance to the human mind and to the human spirit than the accomplishment of the useful ends for which the schools were founded."
February 6, 2024
This is a love letter to basic science.
In his 1921 essay, Abraham Flexner argues that scientists should be able to focus solely on following their curiosity. “[M]ost Of the really great discovery, which had ultimately proved to be beneficial to mankind, had been made by men and women who were driven not by the desire to be useful but merely the desire to satisfy their curiosity.”
He proposes that institutions of learning should only focus on cultivating curiosity, not affected by concerns about usefulness. “To be sure, we shall thus waste some precious dollars. But what is infinitely more important is that we shall be striking the shackles of the human mind, and setting it free for the adventures, which in our own day have, on the one hand, taken Hale and Rutherford and Einstein and their peers millions upon millions of miles into the uttermost realms of space, and, on the other, loosed the boundless energy imprisoned in the atom.”
This freedom to pursue curiosity is what led Flexner to establish the Institute for Advance Study in 1930. There, researchers were to have no administrative duties, no committee meetings, but plenty of time to follow the research instincts. “By setting up his academic paradise, Flexner unintentionally enabled the nuclear and digital revolutions,” Dijkgraaf writes in his foreword to Flexner’s essay.
Dijkgraaf argues that the usefulness of useless knowledge remains a highly relevant perspective today:
1. Advancement of knowledge
2. New tools and techniques
3. Attracting the brightest minds to research
4. Making discoveries publicly available to society
5. Startup companies
However, Dijkgraaf also highlights that support for basic research has declined in recent decades. “The U.S. federal research and development budget, measured as a fraction of the gross domestic product, has steady, declined [since the 1960s. …] On top of this, industry, driven by short-term shareholder pressure, has been steadily decreasing its research activities, transferring that responsibility, largely to public funding and private philanthropy.” Research is also increasingly evaluated via fixed goals and metrics. All of this has led to declining support for the production of useless knowledge.
In his 1921 essay, Abraham Flexner argues that scientists should be able to focus solely on following their curiosity. “[M]ost Of the really great discovery, which had ultimately proved to be beneficial to mankind, had been made by men and women who were driven not by the desire to be useful but merely the desire to satisfy their curiosity.”
He proposes that institutions of learning should only focus on cultivating curiosity, not affected by concerns about usefulness. “To be sure, we shall thus waste some precious dollars. But what is infinitely more important is that we shall be striking the shackles of the human mind, and setting it free for the adventures, which in our own day have, on the one hand, taken Hale and Rutherford and Einstein and their peers millions upon millions of miles into the uttermost realms of space, and, on the other, loosed the boundless energy imprisoned in the atom.”
This freedom to pursue curiosity is what led Flexner to establish the Institute for Advance Study in 1930. There, researchers were to have no administrative duties, no committee meetings, but plenty of time to follow the research instincts. “By setting up his academic paradise, Flexner unintentionally enabled the nuclear and digital revolutions,” Dijkgraaf writes in his foreword to Flexner’s essay.
Dijkgraaf argues that the usefulness of useless knowledge remains a highly relevant perspective today:
1. Advancement of knowledge
2. New tools and techniques
3. Attracting the brightest minds to research
4. Making discoveries publicly available to society
5. Startup companies
However, Dijkgraaf also highlights that support for basic research has declined in recent decades. “The U.S. federal research and development budget, measured as a fraction of the gross domestic product, has steady, declined [since the 1960s. …] On top of this, industry, driven by short-term shareholder pressure, has been steadily decreasing its research activities, transferring that responsibility, largely to public funding and private philanthropy.” Research is also increasingly evaluated via fixed goals and metrics. All of this has led to declining support for the production of useless knowledge.
June 8, 2020
Livro curto que traz alguns exemplos de invenções e criações humanas que nasceram de forma quase involuntária e que além de reforçarem o titulo do livro, alçam a curiosidade ao grande dínamo da inovação. Um aspecto interessante do livro é ele ser dividido em duas partes, quase um diálogo entre pessoas em épocas diferentes: de um lado um ensaio escrito pelo Abraham Flexner em 1939 e do outro um ensaio de 1997 escrito pelo Robbert Dijkgraaf. Em comum a defesa pela busca as respostas as mais profundas questões existenciais, motivadas apenas pela curiosidade e sem uma preocupação imediata com sua aplicação.
October 17, 2022
Cannot agree more. If you are a researcher or you are interested in research, this book is a must read for you.
Remark: The book title in Thai is "ประโยชน์ของความรู้ที่ไร้ประโยชน์" (translated by กิตติธัช สุมาลย์นพ), and please do not forget to read the preface written by ดร.นำชัย ชีววิวรรธน์. I can guarantee that it will be worth your time.
Remark: The book title in Thai is "ประโยชน์ของความรู้ที่ไร้ประโยชน์" (translated by กิตติธัช สุมาลย์นพ), and please do not forget to read the preface written by ดร.นำชัย ชีววิวรรธน์. I can guarantee that it will be worth your time.
August 5, 2019
Thought provoking paper with one star deducted for pretentiousness that registered off the charts.
November 23, 2024
Tão atual e importante. A liberdade académica, o apreço pela ciência fundamental e o desejo de conhecimento como desígnio humano inegociável. Li de um fôlego e voltarei aqui muitas vezes.
July 26, 2023
A short book with few powerful points regarding science and research. Great read for anyone interested in reasoning why science should be unconditionally and heavily funded.
February 21, 2025
A beautiful defense of curiosity and pure intellectual pursuit.
May 14, 2017
I found some good stuff here. The bits of intellectual history were fun, even inspiring.
But on the whole it was a bit ... overwrought. Lots of saccharine stuff about the human spirit taking wings and soaring high over the warm brown turds of practicality. Take this passage which summarizes nicely the book's main thrust:
"The real enemy of the human race is not the fearless and irresponsible thinker, be he right or wrong. The real enemy is the man who tries to mold the human spirit so that it will not dare to spread its wings..."
It does not seem to have occurred to Flexner that precisely one of the ways that "fearless and irresponsible" thinkers go wrong is by arriving at conclusions which "seek to mold the human spirit." Take Marx. Or Rousseau.
Besides, we now know what Flexner did not know at the time he wrote this essay in 1939: That "useless knowledge" can quickly become worse than useless—as, for example, our knowledge of the atomic world may well do before long. Sure, the discoveries of Einstein, Bohr, etc. have been thrilling. But we have yet to learn whether, in the end, we won't decide we would have all been better off without them.
If Flexner's thesis is that we should rejoice in all knowledge, then I agree. But we should rejoice with trembling.
But on the whole it was a bit ... overwrought. Lots of saccharine stuff about the human spirit taking wings and soaring high over the warm brown turds of practicality. Take this passage which summarizes nicely the book's main thrust:
"The real enemy of the human race is not the fearless and irresponsible thinker, be he right or wrong. The real enemy is the man who tries to mold the human spirit so that it will not dare to spread its wings..."
It does not seem to have occurred to Flexner that precisely one of the ways that "fearless and irresponsible" thinkers go wrong is by arriving at conclusions which "seek to mold the human spirit." Take Marx. Or Rousseau.
Besides, we now know what Flexner did not know at the time he wrote this essay in 1939: That "useless knowledge" can quickly become worse than useless—as, for example, our knowledge of the atomic world may well do before long. Sure, the discoveries of Einstein, Bohr, etc. have been thrilling. But we have yet to learn whether, in the end, we won't decide we would have all been better off without them.
If Flexner's thesis is that we should rejoice in all knowledge, then I agree. But we should rejoice with trembling.
September 2, 2018
A little gem. An introduction to a paper from 1939, both about 40 pages. The value of research for research sake and a useful dig at modern metrics. A lot to be learnt regarding the dubious paths we have followed in the last 30 years.
November 22, 2018
This little monograph gives us two related essays. The first essay is contemporary and written by Robbert Dijkgraaf, the present director of the Institute of Advanced Studies. In this essay he serves up a history lesson of sorts, giving us some autobiographical detail on Abraham Flexner, the founding director of the Institute of Advanced Studies. He goes into the Flexner’s beliefs which was the founding principles of the Institute as well as its role in the history of American innovation as the place where creativity and research into basic and fundamental research takes place. He goes into how the founding belief in the meaning of the title forms the guiding principle of the institution. He very nicely frames Flexner’s basic belief. We are then given Flexner’s original essay on why seemingly useless knowledge is more important than just practical knowledge; indeed, should be the bedrock principles of scientific and humanities research in the United States.
You can read the passion and purpose in Flexner’s essay, he resolutely defends his idea against every plausible objection anyone can raise in opposition. It is inspirational to read this essay, written in 1939, it demonstrates just how prescient Flexner was in insisting that the Institute of Advanced Studies be the exception to the pragmatic tendencies of American science and resist the commercial bent of the American mindset.
Dijkgraaf skillfully demonstrates, with the examples from the Institute’s history, of just how the useless knowledge being pursued by the researchers at the Institute end up contributing to the applied knowledge of the world. In a way, the contemporary essay serves as vindication of Flexner’s conviction.
This book will be read many times, as a beacon for myself when my belief for basic research is faltering.
You can read the passion and purpose in Flexner’s essay, he resolutely defends his idea against every plausible objection anyone can raise in opposition. It is inspirational to read this essay, written in 1939, it demonstrates just how prescient Flexner was in insisting that the Institute of Advanced Studies be the exception to the pragmatic tendencies of American science and resist the commercial bent of the American mindset.
Dijkgraaf skillfully demonstrates, with the examples from the Institute’s history, of just how the useless knowledge being pursued by the researchers at the Institute end up contributing to the applied knowledge of the world. In a way, the contemporary essay serves as vindication of Flexner’s conviction.
This book will be read many times, as a beacon for myself when my belief for basic research is faltering.
April 1, 2025
This essay brilliantly argues that seemingly impractical intellectual pursuits often yield the most transformative practical benefits. Through historical examples from science and mathematics, Flexner demonstrates how curiosity-driven research without immediate application has repeatedly led to revolutionary innovations.
The essay illustrates how Maxwell's theoretical electromagnetic equations eventually enabled radio and television, how Einstein's abstract relativity theory later proved crucial for GPS technology, and how mathematical curiosities ultimately underpinned modern computing. These connections only became apparent in hindsight, often decades after the original "useless" discoveries.
His core insight remains relevant, even more, today: a society that values only immediately practical knowledge stifles the very source of its greatest advances. True innovation emerges from an ecosystem where researchers are free to pursue knowledge for its own sake, without pressure to demonstrate immediate utility.
This short work makes a compelling case for supporting pure research and cultivating intellectual curiosity beyond obvious applications—a perspective especially vital in our increasingly outcome-focused academic and research environments.
The essay illustrates how Maxwell's theoretical electromagnetic equations eventually enabled radio and television, how Einstein's abstract relativity theory later proved crucial for GPS technology, and how mathematical curiosities ultimately underpinned modern computing. These connections only became apparent in hindsight, often decades after the original "useless" discoveries.
His core insight remains relevant, even more, today: a society that values only immediately practical knowledge stifles the very source of its greatest advances. True innovation emerges from an ecosystem where researchers are free to pursue knowledge for its own sake, without pressure to demonstrate immediate utility.
This short work makes a compelling case for supporting pure research and cultivating intellectual curiosity beyond obvious applications—a perspective especially vital in our increasingly outcome-focused academic and research environments.
July 30, 2017
Flexner's thesis rests on the fact that everyone should be free to pursue his or her interests without regard for usefulness of the pursuit: a laudable ideal, but it is just too idealistic. Having recently finished American Kingpin, where libertarian ideals clash with the need for individuals to have a responsibility towards society, this essay's message was all the more abhorrent to me. It seems to shirk the responsibility that researchers have to today's society in favour of potential unclear benefits to the future.
And yet, I give this essay a high rating as it is well written, well reasoned, and the message of pursuit for pursuit's sake is only problematic when taken to the extreme; just as the scenario that Flexner argues against is problematic where pursuit of answers occurs only by virtue of utility
And yet, I give this essay a high rating as it is well written, well reasoned, and the message of pursuit for pursuit's sake is only problematic when taken to the extreme; just as the scenario that Flexner argues against is problematic where pursuit of answers occurs only by virtue of utility
August 5, 2019
A brief, eloquent defensive of simple curiosity as the driving force of intellectual endeavor. Flexner, the founder of the Institute of Advanced Studies in Princeton, NJ, provides numerous examples of how even the most "practical" advances grew from research conducted with not even a ghost of a thought for application. Roughly as contemporary and necessary now as when it was first published in 1939.
January 4, 2025
This was the last book my father in law was reading, before he passed away after a life long dedication to theoretical physics. He was not able to finish the book, the bookmarker stucks on page 39, but I’m pretty sure he already knew the message since he walked the talk during his long academic career that lasted for more than sixty years.
The book is a reprint of an essay by Flexner, the founder of the Institue for Advanced Study in Princeton on ‘The Usefulness of Useless Knowledge’
The book is a reprint of an essay by Flexner, the founder of the Institue for Advanced Study in Princeton on ‘The Usefulness of Useless Knowledge’
June 13, 2018
Bought this for my dad for Father's Day. Previewed it (of course) before I give it to him on Sunday.
What a perfect, tiny but powerful argument for the importance of curiosity as the essential foundation for education and discovery.
What a perfect, tiny but powerful argument for the importance of curiosity as the essential foundation for education and discovery.
April 10, 2024
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand”
December 13, 2017
Presents an urgently needed corrective to the current pull away from non-product-based science, and indeed, under our current government, a wholesale resistance to science generally!
September 11, 2021
Highlighting how innovation can stem from just basic research driven by curiosity as opposed to having it be results oriented.
Insightful but repetitive.
Insightful but repetitive.
January 30, 2021
A 100 page advertisement for IAS, Princeton.
March 27, 2023
Fantastic timeless essay about curiosity, free-spirited research and the need for academic institutions that support this, not just applied, practical sciences.
April 17, 2021
As a neuroscientist focused on fundamental research, reading this was a reminder of why it is okay to simply follow my curiosity for the sake of satisfying it. This short read clearly differentiates the difference between a scientist vs. inventor, fundaments vs. application.
March 30, 2017
Written in the 1940s, Flexner's essay uses many examples to sell intellectual freedom in the pursuit of basic science and fundamental research. Flexner cites many examples to support this argument (penicillin, Manhattan Project, spaceflight program), but I'm not convinced by its relevance today, especially in an age where investment in scientific research is dwindling, funding grants are more difficult to get, and the absolute number of 'academic' researchers that America can support is tapering off and even dropping. Even so, I think that cloud has a silver lining - industry investments in research have never been higher.
June 11, 2017
Newton যখন আপেল নিচে পড়ার রহস্য নিয়ে বলছিল তখন অবশ্যই সে চিন্তা করেনাই এইটা মানুষকে মহাবিশ্বে ভ্রমন করাবে,,
Maxwell যখন আলোর তরঙ্গ তথ্য দিয়েছিল তখন সে বলেনাই এইটার উপর ভিত্তি করে মানুষের জীবন যাত্রার মান change হবে,,
তারা এইটি করেছিল just curiosity থেকে,
এইটার ব্যবহার সম্পর্কে তারা একটা মুহুর্ত চিন্তা করেনি,,
মনে হয় তাদের সময় এইসব ছিল useless, যা বর্তমান সভ্যতার চাবিকাঠি,,,
Don't always think about usefulness of your work, because you can't tell when it will be useful ...
Maxwell যখন আলোর তরঙ্গ তথ্য দিয়েছিল তখন সে বলেনাই এইটার উপর ভিত্তি করে মানুষের জীবন যাত্রার মান change হবে,,
তারা এইটি করেছিল just curiosity থেকে,
এইটার ব্যবহার সম্পর্কে তারা একটা মুহুর্ত চিন্তা করেনি,,
মনে হয় তাদের সময় এইসব ছিল useless, যা বর্তমান সভ্যতার চাবিকাঠি,,,
Don't always think about usefulness of your work, because you can't tell when it will be useful ...
July 17, 2024
This paper touches the core of a liberal society: The freedom of thought. Even better, the unlimited cultivation and stimulation of individual curiosity to find its way wherever it wants to go.
The conviction of Abraham Flexner is that this is the only and best guarantee for the biggest leaps in human progress. And I can only agree with this.
Reading this paper triggered the following ideas.
Today, every research institute in the world should be a center of this liberal thought of freedom of knowledge.
Unfortunately, in the current neoliberal age, everything needs to be managed in relation to costs. Hence everything needs to be measured and controlled. Even universities. The output needs to exceed a miminum expectation (KPI) in relation to the investment and this in the shortest timeframe as possible. So preferably, promisses on ourcomes need to be made and if possibly guaranteed. In this way it's the funding who defines the behavior of a university. This results in the fact that only the faculties, who research topics which are 'trending' or important in a political (defense), but most of all in an economical way, are getting funds. And even worse, that only the 'interesting' (read: fundable) topics are being researched.
This thinking feeds the debate on what's the best way to fund research. Should we need to know the research topic before? What if not? What if we just invest a fair share blindly in a big jar. But how will this money be distributed? What will be the decission mechanism? Everyone an equal share? This is not an easy exercise.
Another thought that is triggered in this paper is that the growth of knowledge is a (global) human endeavour and so can't be limited by national borders. This means that knowledge may not be limited or controlled by politics. On the other hand, in current knowledge economies, knowledge has become an (the most) important asset. So, knowledge has been straightjacketed in both economical and political terms. This shows that the liberal thought of free knowledge generation and knowledge sharing is put under pressure.
A third thought is that knowledge is power. If you have access to certain knowledge you can do something with it. This can be for the good, but also for the bad. The latter is refered by Flexner as 'the folly of man'. But this folly is also a reality. Individuals can make bombs or hack computers, to give some examples. But also nation states can attack eachother or individuals (surveillance) in this way. How can we avoid this danger when striving for free, global, knowledge sharing. What knowledge do we keep 'private' and what knowledge is 'open source'. And again, who decides on this?
And last but not least, how will artificial intelligence, in combination with all the shared data on the internet, have an impact on knowledge generation, knowledge sharing, biasing effects, attacking knowledge quality...
I'm very curious on what Abraham Flexner his responds would be on these questions. Unfortunately we will never know.
Finally, a provocative insight of Flexner, mentioned in this paper, is that the person who made America great and a hegemon in the 20th century, was Hitler himself! Because, Hitler caused all the biggest European scientist to run to America resulting in the fact that most of the core technologies of the digital revolution of the 20th century emerged from this. Secondly (in my opinion), the defeat of Hitler by the allies, starting from D-Day on June 6th 1944, gave the Americans also a moral hegemony in the Western World for the rest of the century. They not only proclaimed freedom, they literally brought freedom to the people, by liberating them from the nazi's.
Very good paper. It touches on a currently very important topic, as we are having both a 'truth' crisis and quite big global problems, like climate change which require global (high quality) knowledge sharing and free and unlimited development of ideas.
4 stars, because the paper, due to its shortness, just scratched the surface of a major topic for discussion.
The conviction of Abraham Flexner is that this is the only and best guarantee for the biggest leaps in human progress. And I can only agree with this.
Reading this paper triggered the following ideas.
Today, every research institute in the world should be a center of this liberal thought of freedom of knowledge.
Unfortunately, in the current neoliberal age, everything needs to be managed in relation to costs. Hence everything needs to be measured and controlled. Even universities. The output needs to exceed a miminum expectation (KPI) in relation to the investment and this in the shortest timeframe as possible. So preferably, promisses on ourcomes need to be made and if possibly guaranteed. In this way it's the funding who defines the behavior of a university. This results in the fact that only the faculties, who research topics which are 'trending' or important in a political (defense), but most of all in an economical way, are getting funds. And even worse, that only the 'interesting' (read: fundable) topics are being researched.
This thinking feeds the debate on what's the best way to fund research. Should we need to know the research topic before? What if not? What if we just invest a fair share blindly in a big jar. But how will this money be distributed? What will be the decission mechanism? Everyone an equal share? This is not an easy exercise.
Another thought that is triggered in this paper is that the growth of knowledge is a (global) human endeavour and so can't be limited by national borders. This means that knowledge may not be limited or controlled by politics. On the other hand, in current knowledge economies, knowledge has become an (the most) important asset. So, knowledge has been straightjacketed in both economical and political terms. This shows that the liberal thought of free knowledge generation and knowledge sharing is put under pressure.
A third thought is that knowledge is power. If you have access to certain knowledge you can do something with it. This can be for the good, but also for the bad. The latter is refered by Flexner as 'the folly of man'. But this folly is also a reality. Individuals can make bombs or hack computers, to give some examples. But also nation states can attack eachother or individuals (surveillance) in this way. How can we avoid this danger when striving for free, global, knowledge sharing. What knowledge do we keep 'private' and what knowledge is 'open source'. And again, who decides on this?
And last but not least, how will artificial intelligence, in combination with all the shared data on the internet, have an impact on knowledge generation, knowledge sharing, biasing effects, attacking knowledge quality...
I'm very curious on what Abraham Flexner his responds would be on these questions. Unfortunately we will never know.
Finally, a provocative insight of Flexner, mentioned in this paper, is that the person who made America great and a hegemon in the 20th century, was Hitler himself! Because, Hitler caused all the biggest European scientist to run to America resulting in the fact that most of the core technologies of the digital revolution of the 20th century emerged from this. Secondly (in my opinion), the defeat of Hitler by the allies, starting from D-Day on June 6th 1944, gave the Americans also a moral hegemony in the Western World for the rest of the century. They not only proclaimed freedom, they literally brought freedom to the people, by liberating them from the nazi's.
Very good paper. It touches on a currently very important topic, as we are having both a 'truth' crisis and quite big global problems, like climate change which require global (high quality) knowledge sharing and free and unlimited development of ideas.
4 stars, because the paper, due to its shortness, just scratched the surface of a major topic for discussion.
September 24, 2023
he Usefulness of Useless Knowledge ประโยชน์ของความรู้ที่ไร้ประโยชน์, Abraham Flexner
#readwithphx #วันนี้อ่านอะไรดี
บทความเล่มเล็กของเอบราฮัม เฟล็กซ์เนอร์ และบทความประกอบของรอเบิร์ต ไดจค์กราฟ
.
หนังสือเล่มน้อยเล่มนี้แสดงให้เห็นความทรงพลังของความรู้ทุกแขนงและเป็นนิรันดร์
ณ ปัจจุบันสถาบันการวิจัยวิทยาศาสตร์ ไม่ว่าจะในรูปแบบของโรงเรียน มหาวิทยาลัยหรือสถาบันอื่นๆ ทั่วโลกตีกรอบและจำกัดการศึกษาไว้เพียงเพื่อสนองความต้องการของรัฐเท่านั้น ส่วนใหญ่เป็นภาคเทคโนโลยี นวัตกรรม และภาคธุรกิจเป็นส่วนใหญ่โดยการสนับสนุนทุนวิจัยในหัวข้อที่ไม่ใช่การวิจัยพื้นฐาน และมีระยะเวลากำหนด จึงทำให้ตอนนี้สถานการณ์ของความรู้ทางด้านวิทยาศาสตร์กำลังตกอยู่ในวิกฤต นักวิจัยไม่มีแรงกระตุ้น ไม่ปรารถนาหรือไม่สามารถศึกษาเชิงลึกได้ในเวลาอันจำกัดและทุนอันจำกัดนี้
.
บทนำของดร.นำชัย พูดถึงภาพรวมของการวิจัยพื้นฐานและทุนที่น้อยลงทุกทีในประเทศไทย ทั้งนี้ความรู้ด้านวิทยาศาสตร์เป็นหนึ่งในภาพสะท้อนรายได้และสภาพเศรษฐกิจของประเทศนั้นๆ ด้วย อย่างในไทยเห็นได้ชัดว่าลดลงทุกปี*
.
บทความทั้งสองในเล่ม: มีการกล่าวถึงนักวิทยาศาสตร์ชื่อดังที่ทุกคนรู้จักมักจี่ทั้งสิ้น ไม่ว่าจะเป็นออปเพนไฮเมอร์, ไอน์สไตน์ แมกซ์เวลล์, แฮทซ์(เฮิร์ตซ),ฟอน นอยมัน, ฟาราเดย์, ทัวริง, วีลเลอร์ และคนอื่นๆ อีกมากมาย ทุกคนล้วนเป็นนักวิทยาศาสตร์ที่วิจัยเรื่องที่ตัวเองสนใจเพื่อสนองความอยากรู้อยากเห็น และความเชื่อมั่นที่เต็มเปี่ยมโดยปราศจากกรอบของเวลาและจินตนาการทั้งสิ้น และที่สำคัญ "ไม่มีใครคำนึงถึงประโยชน์ของความรู้เหล่านั้น" และ "ไม่ได้คำนึงถึงอันตรายที่จะตามมาด้วยเช่นกัน" *หลังจากบทความของเฟล็กซ์เนอร์ตีพิมพ์ออกมาไม่นาน จดหมายของไอน์สไตน์ไปถึงมือปธน.โรสเวลต์ ออปเพนไฮเมอร์และนักวิทยาศาสตร์แมนฮัตตันโปรเจกต์ก็ได้สร้างระเบิดปรมาณูขึ้น แน่นอนว่าไม่มีใครโทษนักวิทยาศาสตร์ได้เต็มปากเต็มคำ เนื่องจากพวกเขาทั้งหลายไขปริศนาธรรมชาติเพื่อ"เข้าใจ" มิใช่นำไปใช้ในทางที่ผิด รัฐบาลและการทหารต่างหากที่นำสิ่งเหล่านั้นไปใช้ นับเป็นความโง่เขลาของมนุษย์ ไม่ใช่ความผิดของความรู้นั้น
.
ต่อมาเมื่อมีผู้ที่มีวิสัยทัศน์อันกว้างไกล และคำนึงถึงความสำคัญของรากฐานแห่งปัญญาเหล่านี้ คือ ลุย แบมเบอร์เกอร์และแคโรไลน์ บี ฟัลด์(น้องสาวของลุย)จากการโน้มน้าวโดยเฟล็กซ์เนอร์ทั้งคู่จึงได้สนับสนุนทุนก่อตั้งสถาบันศึกษาขั้นสูง(Institute of Advanced Study)ในรัฐนิวเจอร์ซีขึ้น สถาบันนี้เป็นเสมือน learning hub ที่ให้ความปลอดภัยและพื้นที่อันไร้ขอบเขตแก่นักวิจัยทั่วโลกโดยปราศจากอคติทางด้านเชื้อชาติ เพศ และศาสนา สถาบันนี้ไร้ตึก อาคาร ไม่มีงานเอกสาร ไม่มีงานสอน ไม่มีการประเมินผลใดๆ ให้ปวดหัวยุ่งยาก
.
ใครจะรู้กันเล่าว่าความรู้ที่ไม่ได้ถูกคำนึงถึงประโยชน์จะกลายมาเป็นปัจจุบันของเหล่ามวลมนุษยชาติ ความว้าวของเล่มนี้คือทำให้เราเห็นภาพชัดว่านวัตกรรมต่างๆ รอบตัวที่เราไม่อาจจินตนาการถึงวันที่ไม่มีสิ่งเหล่านี้ได้ล้วนถือกำเนิดขึ้นจากความรู้ที่ไร้ประโยชน์มาก่อนทั้งสิ้น(นึกถึงงานของมอร์สที่เปี่ยมรักและแสนเศร้า)
.
บทความของเฟล็กซ์เนอร์จะเน้นย้ำเสมอถึงความสำคัญของความรู้ที่ไร้ประโยชน์ ไม่เพียงแต่สายวิทยาศาสตร์แต่ยังรวมถึงสายสังคมศาสตร์ มนุษยศาสตร์ ศิลปศาสตร์ ภาพวาด งานเพลง เศรษฐศาสตร์และรัฐศาสตร์อีกด้วย
.
แต่อย่างไรก็ตาม เฟล็กซ์เนอร์ออกไปทางไม่ appreciated นักประยุกต์เท่าไหร่ ออกแนวดูแคลนด้วยซ้ำ ซึ่งเราไม่เห็นด้วยกับการดูถูกดูแคลนว่าเป็นการ "ฉกฉวยมันสมองคนอื่น" เท่าไหร่ แต่ก็ไม่เห็นด้วยกับการให้เครดิตทั้งหมดแก่นักประดิษฐ์แต่ถ่ายเดียว
.
และจริงอย่างที่ไดจค์กราฟว่า พฤติกรรมชอบความสุ่มเสี่ยงของมนุษยชาติที่มีมาแต่โบราณทำให้เราช่วยกันสร้างโลกอนาคตขึ้นมาได้อย่างน่าอัศจรรย์ในเวลาอันสั้นในไม่กี่ร้อยปี
.
การศึกษาขั้นพื้นฐานไม่ใช่แค่งานที่ทำแต่ในแล็บ ฟังเลคเชอร์น่าเบื่อหน่าย หรือเป็นเรื่องของพวกเนิร์ด แต่มันคือสิ่งที่ช่วยยกระดับจิตวิญญาณเหมือนงานศิลปะทุกแขนง ดังนั้นมันมีพลวัตที่เลื่อนไหลได้เช่นสังคม ผู้คนที่หลงใหลใคร่รู้ไม่ควรยึดเอาความรู้ที่ตนคิดว่ารู้แท้รู้จริงเป็นที่ตั้ง แต่ควรเคารพต่อข้อเท็จจริงและ 'ความไม่แน่นอน' ขององค์ความรู้นั้นด้วย ความพยายามที่จะเข้าใกล้ความจริงของมนุษย์เป็นหนึ่งในเหตุผลของการดำรงอยู่ ดังนั้นจงอย่าเป็นแก้วที่มีน้ำเต็ม เพราะการค้นหาความจริงต่อไปจึงทำให้เราดำรงอยู่✨🌄
.
บทความนี้จะร้อยปีแล้ว แต่ยังคงเป็นจริงอยู่ เป็นนิรันดร์เป็นสากลอยู่ ต้องบอกว่าเพลินและสนุกดีเหมือนกันค่ะ ขอแนะนำเลยย
#readwithphx #วันนี้อ่านอะไรดี
บทความเล่มเล็กของเอบราฮัม เฟล็กซ์เนอร์ และบทความประกอบของรอเบิร์ต ไดจค์กราฟ
.
หนังสือเล่มน้อยเล่มนี้แสดงให้เห็นความทรงพลังของความรู้ทุกแขนงและเป็นนิรันดร์
ณ ปัจจุบันสถาบันการวิจัยวิทยาศาสตร์ ไม่ว่าจะในรูปแบบของโรงเรียน มหาวิทยาลัยหรือสถาบันอื่นๆ ทั่วโลกตีกรอบและจำกัดการศึกษาไว้เพียงเพื่อสนองความต้องการของรัฐเท่านั้น ส่วนใหญ่เป็นภาคเทคโนโลยี นวัตกรรม และภาคธุรกิจเป็นส่วนใหญ่โดยการสนับสนุนทุนวิจัยในหัวข้อที่ไม่ใช่การวิจัยพื้นฐาน และมีระยะเวลากำหนด จึงทำให้ตอนนี้สถานการณ์ของความรู้ทางด้านวิทยาศาสตร์กำลังตกอยู่ในวิกฤต นักวิจัยไม่มีแรงกระตุ้น ไม่ปรารถนาหรือไม่สามารถศึกษาเชิงลึกได้ในเวลาอันจำกัดและทุนอันจำกัดนี้
.
บทนำของดร.นำชัย พูดถึงภาพรวมของการวิจัยพื้นฐานและทุนที่น้อยลงทุกทีในประเทศไทย ทั้งนี้ความรู้ด้านวิทยาศาสตร์เป็นหนึ่งในภาพสะท้อนรายได้และสภาพเศรษฐกิจของประเทศนั้นๆ ด้วย อย่างในไทยเห็นได้ชัดว่าลดลงทุกปี*
.
บทความทั้งสองในเล่ม: มีการกล่าวถึงนักวิทยาศาสตร์ชื่อดังที่ทุกคนรู้จักมักจี่ทั้งสิ้น ไม่ว่าจะเป็นออปเพนไฮเมอร์, ไอน์สไตน์ แมกซ์เวลล์, แฮทซ์(เฮิร์ตซ),ฟอน นอยมัน, ฟาราเดย์, ทัวริง, วีลเลอร์ และคนอื่นๆ อีกมากมาย ทุกคนล้วนเป็นนักวิทยาศาสตร์ที่วิจัยเรื่องที่ตัวเองสนใจเพื่อสนองความอยากรู้อยากเห็น และความเชื่อมั่นที่เต็มเปี่ยมโดยปราศจากกรอบของเวลาและจินตนาการทั้งสิ้น และที่สำคัญ "ไม่มีใครคำนึงถึงประโยชน์ของความรู้เหล่านั้น" และ "ไม่ได้คำนึงถึงอันตรายที่จะตามมาด้วยเช่นกัน" *หลังจากบทความของเฟล็กซ์เนอร์ตีพิมพ์ออกมาไม่นาน จดหมายของไอน์สไตน์ไปถึงมือปธน.โรสเวลต์ ออปเพนไฮเมอร์และนักวิทยาศาสตร์แมนฮัตตันโปรเจกต์ก็ได้สร้างระเบิดปรมาณูขึ้น แน่นอนว่าไม่มีใครโทษนักวิทยาศาสตร์ได้เต็มปากเต็มคำ เนื่องจากพวกเขาทั้งหลายไขปริศนาธรรมชาติเพื่อ"เข้าใจ" มิใช่นำไปใช้ในทางที่ผิด รัฐบาลและการทหารต่างหากที่นำสิ่งเหล่านั้นไปใช้ นับเป็นความโง่เขลาของมนุษย์ ไม่ใช่ความผิดของความรู้นั้น
.
ต่อมาเมื่อมีผู้ที่มีวิสัยทัศน์อันกว้างไกล และคำนึงถึงความสำคัญของรากฐานแห่งปัญญาเหล่านี้ คือ ลุย แบมเบอร์เกอร์และแคโรไลน์ บี ฟัลด์(น้องสาวของลุย)จากการโน้มน้าวโดยเฟล็กซ์เนอร์ทั้งคู่จึงได้สนับสนุนทุนก่อตั้งสถาบันศึกษาขั้นสูง(Institute of Advanced Study)ในรัฐนิวเจอร์ซีขึ้น สถาบันนี้เป็นเสมือน learning hub ที่ให้ความปลอดภัยและพื้นที่อันไร้ขอบเขตแก่นักวิจัยทั่วโลกโดยปราศจากอคติทางด้านเชื้อชาติ เพศ และศาสนา สถาบันนี้ไร้ตึก อาคาร ไม่มีงานเอกสาร ไม่มีงานสอน ไม่มีการประเมินผลใดๆ ให้ปวดหัวยุ่งยาก
.
ใครจะรู้กันเล่าว่าความรู้ที่ไม่ได้ถูกคำนึงถึงประโยชน์จะกลายมาเป็นปัจจุบันของเหล่ามวลมนุษยชาติ ความว้าวของเล่มนี้คือทำให้เราเห็นภาพชัดว่านวัตกรรมต่างๆ รอบตัวที่เราไม่อาจจินตนาการถึงวันที่ไม่มีสิ่งเหล่านี้ได้ล้วนถือกำเนิดขึ้นจากความรู้ที่ไร้ประโยชน์มาก่อนทั้งสิ้น(นึกถึงงานของมอร์สที่เปี่ยมรักและแสนเศร้า)
.
บทความของเฟล็กซ์เนอร์จะเน้นย้ำเสมอถึงความสำคัญของความรู้ที่ไร้ประโยชน์ ไม่เพียงแต่สายวิทยาศาสตร์แต่ยังรวมถึงสายสังคมศาสตร์ มนุษยศาสตร์ ศิลปศาสตร์ ภาพวาด งานเพลง เศรษฐศาสตร์และรัฐศาสตร์อีกด้วย
.
แต่อย่างไรก็ตาม เฟล็กซ์เนอร์ออกไปทางไม่ appreciated นักประยุกต์เท่าไหร่ ออกแนวดูแคลนด้วยซ้ำ ซึ่งเราไม่เห็นด้วยกับการดูถูกดูแคลนว่าเป็นการ "ฉกฉวยมันสมองคนอื่น" เท่าไหร่ แต่ก็ไม่เห็นด้วยกับการให้เครดิตทั้งหมดแก่นักประดิษฐ์แต่ถ่ายเดียว
.
และจริงอย่างที่ไดจค์กราฟว่า พฤติกรรมชอบความสุ่มเสี่ยงของมนุษยชาติที่มีมาแต่โบราณทำให้เราช่วยกันสร้างโลกอนาคตขึ้นมาได้อย่างน่าอัศจรรย์ในเวลาอันสั้นในไม่กี่ร้อยปี
.
การศึกษาขั้นพื้นฐานไม่ใช่แค่งานที่ทำแต่ในแล็บ ฟังเลคเชอร์น่าเบื่อหน่าย หรือเป็นเรื่องของพวกเนิร์ด แต่มันคือสิ่งที่ช่วยยกระดับจิตวิญญาณเหมือนงานศิลปะทุกแขนง ดังนั้นมันมีพลวัตที่เลื่อนไหลได้เช่นสังคม ผู้คนที่หลงใหลใคร่รู้ไม่ควรยึดเอาความรู้ที่ตนคิดว่ารู้แท้รู้จริงเป็นที่ตั้ง แต่ควรเคารพต่อข้อเท็จจริงและ 'ความไม่แน่นอน' ขององค์ความรู้นั้นด้วย ความพยายามที่จะเข้าใกล้ความจริงของมนุษย์เป็นหนึ่งในเหตุผลของการดำรงอยู่ ดังนั้นจงอย่าเป็นแก้วที่มีน้ำเต็ม เพราะการค้นหาความจริงต่อไปจึงทำให้เราดำรงอยู่✨🌄
.
บทความนี้จะร้อยปีแล้ว แต่ยังคงเป็นจริงอยู่ เป็นนิรันดร์เป็นสากลอยู่ ต้องบอกว่าเพลินและสนุกดีเหมือนกันค่ะ ขอแนะนำเลยย
Displaying 1 - 30 of 108 reviews