Commentary

The Astrophysical Generalist

Is there a point to pursuing pure science if it can only be understood by a specialist? I don't mean applied; specialist should clearly study how the human body works if that knowledge enables us to prolong life and improve our health, even if that knowledge is beyond by ability to comprehend. I have in mind science that has no application. Is there a reason to study pure science simply for the sake of knowledge?

Nothing is more pure science than astrophysics. Our knowledge of objects outside of the solar system has no application to our daily lives. Astrophysicists study physical processes that are generally unattainable in the laboratory, and the nearest stars are too distant to reach with today's, tomorrow's, or next century's technology.

This, of course, does not prevent astronomers and astrophysicists from trying to make these fields materialistically relevant. Astronomers studying asteroids continually point to the possibility of a collision as a reason for this study; though perhaps this is a better excuses to study giant rocket engines and nuclear bombs. Once in a press conference an astronomer justified the study of black holes with x-ray satellites by claiming we could extract usable power from black holes; but the stars we think are black holes are thousands of parsecs away, so don't expect this technology any time in the next several millennia.

We study astrophysics for the same two reasons we study the great books: its study enriches our lives, and its study makes us better citizens.

The study of astrophysics remove the uncertainty of nature. We know that the universe we see today evolved from a simple universe, one without stars and galaxies, filled only with hydrogen and helium. We understand that the early universe precluded our existence, and we understand that gradually, as the first generations of massive stars burned and exploded, creating and scattering the basic elements required by human life through the universe, the universe became habitable.

When we study astrophysics, we learn how extreme complexity arises from a simple set of principles. When we see astrophysical disks, whether they are the rings around Saturn, the accretion disks around black holes, or the spiral disks within galaxies, we are seeing different manifestations of systems where angular momentum balances the force of gravity. When we study a star, the expansion of the early universe, or a cooling flow in a galaxy cluster, we are studying the war of pressure against gravity. By finding and focusing on the basic principles underlying these disparate objects, we are able to understand the complexity of our universe.

What benefits the individual benefits society. Familiarity with complexity creates a more stable and prosperous society. Individuals in such a society see themselves as in control of their lives, able to recognize and solve the problems that can be solve, and able to navigate through the problems that are beyond control. But astrophysics brings society an additional benefit: it attracts the young and teaches them to think scientifically, creating for society better engineers and applied scientists. Planets, stars, galaxies, and black holes excite our imagination; they are exotic and unattainable. Many an engineer began life as an amateur astronomer.

But all of these reasons are based on a broad and general understanding of astrophysics. I believe that a purely specialized understanding of astrophysics has no value to either the individual or to society; to the contrary, such an approach is damaging, because the knowledge that is created is only understandable to the privileged few with the time and resources to engage in specialized study. The pure specialist therefore lives in a parochial microsociety, unable to understand anything other than his own pursuits.

Only one benefit accrues from specialization, and that benefit is the reason that all of modern science is dominated by specialists: specialization enables science to advance rapidly. The problems of modern science require tremendous intellectual resources, and only teams of specialists are able to deliver these resources.

So here we have the tradeoff: the individual and the society benefits from general knowledge, but scientific advancement benefits from specialized knowledge. What is the balance we should strike between the two?

I believe the balance is struck by placing a limit on scientific research, one that is more restrictive than the natural limits from human and technical capabilities. Research should not be done if it is too esoteric to be understood by a generalist or to be folded into the world view of complex phenomena from simple principles. In many areas we have already exceeded these limits, but do we really need to precisely model the line radiation from a star? At some point, no purpose is served by research, other than to keep specialists employed in an obsolete field. It is in a generalist's view of the universe that we have justification for studying astrophysics.