On number theory and so-called "useless" knowledge

[Prokhor Zakharov]

What is the usefulness of Shakespeare? Or Picasso? Some aspects of mathematics can be treasured for their beauty.

That is entirely the point here.

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

It seems that discussing this aspect is verboten, but I will say that when PZ did say who he was calling out specifically it turned out that he was straw-manning that poster anyway. So there's that.

Looks like Squeegee Beckenheim has no intention of delivering on his F-grade claims that "OP is guiwty of [insewt wogical fawwacy]", what a surprise.

 

[theprestige]

That is entirely the point here.

Wow, that exchange really rankled you, didn't it?

Anyway, the crux of my objection is that you seemed (still seem) to say that knowledge has inherent value, and I disagree with this position. Knowledge has value only in the value derived from its profitable application, or from the personal pleasure one gets in acquiring it.

Rummikub has no intrinsic value, and no practical application, but it's still worth playing with my family and friends. So I say that I play Rummikub because of the pleasure it gives me, in the experience of having played. I don't say I play Rummikub because of the intrinsic value of the game itself.

If you're saying that you learn things for the pleasure it gives you, in the experience of learning them and knowing them, you'll get nothing from support from me.

If you're saying that knowledge has intrinsic value, and should be learned for this reason alone, then we still disagree.

"I study number theory because it's fun; it also happens to be potentially fruitful in practical applications" is a perfectly cromulent attitude, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I suppose one way to assess whether or not knowledge has an inherent value all of its own is to see whether or not it applies to all knowledge. We could, for example, have a thread on this forum in which each poster posts once a day, describing in great detail (no fewer than 1,000 words per item) what's on the top shelf of their fridge. It could even be in the forum rules that everybody must make this post first thing and include a picture as proof otherwise they are not allowed to make any other posts, and failure to comply with this rule is an instant perma-ban.

Assuming there wasn't a mass exodus with people forming an off-shoot sister site without such a rule, this would quickly become a large repository of knowledge. But not a repository that has any scientific value - it's a self-selecting group, it's self-reporting so people can easily lie, and even if those things weren't true the data as a whole would have little even sociological value as it is, at best, incomplete (both in terms of what's in the fridge as a whole, and in terms of demographical information) and isn't attached to any particular hypothesis. It also seems that it would have limited value as a source of interest - some people may be vaguely interested at first, but I think the novelty would wear off quite quickly, and I think that the number of people who would maintain an interest would be very low.

So does this knowledge have inherent value, simply because it's knowledge? If not, how do we determine what knowledge has inherent value, and which doesn't?