“I’m always pleased to say that what I work on has no practical significance whatsoever. The great thing about science is you never know what’s gonna be discovered or what’s the implications. What if you had to pick one area that had less direct practical significance, it’ll be hard to find one that add up more than mine (regarding his role in the public understanding of science). I try to understand how the universe began and how it’s going end and these questions are incredibly important for us culturally but the kind of new physics that we try and develop and understand affects the universe on scales that really are divorced from human scales directly. Obviously, they relate to what the reason of how we got here and ultimately we want to understand these questions and unfortunately religion tries to protect and use up those question and I want to point out how science can dress them so they’re fundamental sort of cultural questions. I’d like to say my work is as useful as a Mozart Symphony… at its best it enhances the cultural experience of being human.”
“…one of the problems with science is that it has practical utility.”
Lawrence Krauss, “Lawrence Krauss and Dave Rubin: Donald Trump, Nuclear Thread, Science and more (Full Interview),” The Rubin Report video, Oct 21, 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erSOdcN8VUI.
- Science engages with practical utility but art helps to navigate, question and mediate it? Science is about discovery–good or bad, whatever implications remain secondary–and art is about questioning these impact?