As both a Christian and a scientifically minded person
You are either one or the other but not both.
All religions are provably human fantasy created by humans for humans. A scientific minded person would have researched religions and their origins would have seen religions for exactly what they are. And therefore, being a scientifically minded person, they would not be religious at all.
Science is, for the most part, silent on the nature of God. He/she/it is, by definition, not measurable in this experience. It is my opinion that any discussion of God in a scientific context is pointless. There is no way to objectively sort out the competing claims for His/her/its existence.
No, your statements are completely religious based, and not representative of science whatsoever. Science is silent on the topic of religion because it is provable false. All religions are purely by humans for humans, based on nothing except human imagination and needs. It is easy to prove the origins of religion. But it is difficult to create a stronger mind. Therefore, people believe religion because they want to, even though it is obviously false. Anyone who is scientifically minded knows and sees religion for what it is and what role it plays in human society. And therefore, since religion is not scientific, scientists do not address it nor have any need to do so.
To clarify a point you are trying to make, people do not realize that Einsteinian Physics is an extension of Newtonian Physics. If you start with Einsteinian Physics and work out/drop the variables which do not apply to your problem, you end up with Newtonian Physics. And the converse is also true. Everything can be calculated with Einsteinian Physics, but for simplicity, Newtonian Physics is taught when the complexity of the entire system is not needed.
"My personal view of things is that the universe seems arranged in such a way as to make life possible. Despite the tendancy of matter towards entrophy complex patterns can form from simpler ones. That smacks of something designed in my eyes."
It is too bad that you have the basis for good logical arguments throughout your post and then your last paragraph is completely false. The last sentence does not logically follow from the preceeding two sentences. You could draw whatever conclusion you wish using your logic above. Therefore, your conclusion is false.
"We are so arrogant to think that we are even capable of answering everything."
Based on what? Your personal opinion. I hear religious people say that drivel all of the time. It is based on absolutely nothing.
If you had a REAL science degree, which by your writing it is clear that you do not, you would know that there are a finite amount of logical, reproducable, and predictable rules which govern our universe and everything within it. All the questions in your fifth and sixth paragraphs are philosophical and religious questions and are meant for filler coursework during an undergrad degree. And you have a very poor understanding of Physics and Relativism for a couple of your questions. The fact of the matter is that the universe, as a whole, still contains mysteries which are not yet fully solved. But, that does not mean they are not completely solvable and understandable, and there is no proof otherwise.
I think you should go back to your Theology and Philosophy studies and stop claiming to be someone with a REAL science degree.
Simply because a book of folklore has a somewhat accurate timeline to some historical events does not make the entire book and its entire premise true. It is not any more true than Hindu, Egyptian, Voodoo, Aztec, American Indian, or 10000 other religions throughout time which are somewhat historically accurate at one point or another. Of course these writings are going to be somewhat accurate, they were created by humans for humans, after all and will inevitably include human historical information at various points in the story. But, whenever a historically accurate piece of information is discovered to be true, that is all that is true. It does not mean anything else is true because of it. Your logic and others like you are completely false.
It did not appear that the parent poster was assigning 'Intelligence' to anything. Assuming you are talking about make-believe religious beliefs. You understanding of natural selection is correct.
The problem is that your optimism is unfounded, especially your last sentence, as history has not shown that to be even close to true. This has never and will never happen between Apple and Linux. Hell, even OS/2 4.0 is still years and years ahead of Linux and OS/2 4.0 is going on 10 years old now. Apple will always be ahead of Linux, even 10-20 years from now. Apple always has and always will be unless something drastic happens.
To reinforce my point, the major drawback to Linux is simply 'death by committee'. Too many people wanting too many different things and nothing gets done. And what does get done is usually only half-assed in its implementation. Not all things on Linux, but the vast majority of them. What Linux needs is exactly two things that Apple has; one vision and strong leadership. Where would Apple be right now if it wasn't for Steve Jobs? Where would Microsoft be without Bill Gates? Exactly. What Linux needs is for one company and/or person to do the same thing. Otherwise, Linux will always be 2nd or 3rd to something else.
Although the Linux zeolots will jump on me for this, your post is exactly correct. This is another case of Linux trying to do what Apple OS X had already done.
On another point is the entire hyprocracy of people in this country. They will fight to the bitter end about stem cells, because they believe they are 'alive', even if it means the loss of possible medical breakthroughs and scientific understanding for millions/billions of people. But, they are perfectly okay with killing tens of thousands of soldiers and civilians in wars to protect millions and billions of people. Religious people: Either you are for or against killing. You can't have it both ways, because one is a direct contradiction of the other.
I have never seen that to be true whatsoever. Burning CD's on Linux is easier than Right Click-->Send to CD in Windows? Not even close. Plus, the first time she has to install something new, like a program or a printer the Linux experience for her will become infinitely more complicated. Also, you have got to be kidding about the shoddy digital camera support under Windows. Are you talking about Windows 98? Under Windows XP, there hasn't been a single piece of USB or FireWire hardware that hasn't 'Just Worked' the instant I plug it in. With my Mom's digital camera, she simply plugged it into the USB port and Windows Explorer came up with all of her pictures in a folder, ready to go. Linux is nowhere near that easy to use.
I'm not a Windows fan, but you can't seriously say that Linux is as usable as Windows yet. The only way Linux will ever become easier to use than Windows will be to become better than Windows...aka OS X.
+2 Insightful? The moderation on this forum is getting worse and worse.
You sound like the typical Linux zealot and fan boy with your reply. OS X is not simply a BSD derivative that runs on an overpriced toaster. It is clearly obvious by your post that you have never used OS X. And it is clear that you have never done a clear, unbiased comparison of the two OS's either. OS X, quite honestly after years of using Linux, is what Linux will always wish to become. It is also a bonus that the Apple hardware that OS X runs on is exceptional as well.
Exactly. Plus, since IBM was not able to deliver the volume Apple needed, would not cuts the prices Apple needed, and would not produce a laptop G5 that Apple needed, Apple took the added value of OS X and simply moved to a new chip. Now that the OS is the added value to the Apple product line, the processor chip is inherently less important than the OS to the user experience.
The arguments do not make any sense. The same things could be said about Linux worshippers. Especially with their zealotry that everything must be Open Source. Would you want all of the software in the world to written half-assed by a bunch of hobbyists and every software company trying to survive on support services alone? Please. All of this computer conversation can be twisted what stupid way you want.
Honestly, Apple is both a hardware and software company and they are operating no differently than any other company. For example, it is the same as IBM selling AS/400 and RS6000 systems and bundling AIX which only runs on those systems. Apple is selling specially built PPC/x86 hardware and bundling OS X which only runs on these systems. There is no problem with this. They go hand-in-hand. On top of that, you will be able to run both OS X and Windows XP on the Apple hardware, so what is your bitch? Two years from now your system will be obsolete anyways, so when you upgrade, buy an Apple. And there is not a draconian policy by Apple on software development. You are free to develop on Apple exactly like any other operating system. And you are free to develop cross-platform applications as well. Hell, you are even free to develop directly on Darwin. So where is your bitch there?
If Apple controlled the computer industry today, the computer industry at the very least, would have some of the finest user interfaces ever invented. And 'Just Works' wouldn't be such a novelty. As far as your entire last sentence, your arguments are baseless and not in touch whatsoever with reality. There always was competition and there will always be competition to drive technology forward.
Therefore, your arguments are completely false. Nowhere in the definition of selfish is it defined as strictly the opposite of selfless. Or, to explain differently, nowhere in the definition of selfish does it define selfish as being everything that is not completely selfless. None of the reasons I love studying and teaching Mathematics are completely concerned with oneself. They are completely for the benefit of others. Any self-satisfaction I gain from that, is not selfish by definition. Your arguments were not very well thought-out nor researched. Better luck next time.
Quote: "No one is trying to discredit electric cars. If an electric car meets your needs -- in the words of Lee Iacocca -- "Buy it!" But don't try to claim some kind of moral high-ground."
Because you say so? That means nothing. As morals are completely subjective, your argument is essentially baseless and meaningless. But, in the essence of clarity, I will attempt to explain the situation further. For the sake of argument, it would be easier to argue that a higher moral ground is easier to obtain by someone who conserves resources, reduces current pollution levels, and attempts to reduce the current US dependence on oil amongst other factors than someone who uses mass amounts of resources, increases or maintains current pollution levels, and increases or maintains the current US dependence on oil amongst other factors. It is also easier to argue that a higher moral ground is easier to obtain by someone who has the choice between the two and does not choose the latter. Those arguments would define someone who is on a higher moral ground. If that bothers you, or you do not like it, that is simply too bad.
+5 moderation. That's funny, all you have to do is post a link to get a +5 moderation even though the rest of your post is filled with baseless zealotry. So, are you a Linux fanboy? Or a Windows fanboy?
The fact of the matter is that OS X IS better than Linux on the desktop. Accept it. You sound like you have a simple case of jealousy. Get over it.
I would find it entertaining if your friends who use Apple's installed some various Linux PPC distribution on their Mac's just to show the Linux fan-boys that they can run Linux too. Will it be stable? No. Is it practical? No. But, hey, maybe some of them will even like it and switch.
It is refreshing to read your posts on Slashdot. You appear to be a clear, critical, and analytically thinking person. That is by far not a common trait of the Slashdot readership. I agree with everything you have written on this subject.
This paper is a classic case of 'soft science' (aka Psychology) trying to make hard factual statements from vaguely correlated or non-correlating data. And even worse, they use completely or near-completely incorrect terminology to describe a situation or condition.
More questions and more tests need to be taken to make sure of what is actually happening. A proper peer review would do just that.
To help further your understanding of the subject of hybrid cars, it would benefit you to follow the following conversation in a reply to my parent post:
I am not posting as an environmentalist. You have labeled me incorrectly.
I agree with your point about nuclear power.
And you are completely wrong about your point concerning selfishness. What is correct is that not everyone in the world is selfish. You did not understand my original statement and then you took it out of context. A dictionary will help you to understand your mistake.
As an example, I love Mathematics and earned my Ph.D. in Mathematics. I also love to teach. I study and teach Mathematics solely for the benefit of science and mankind. Most of the people I know earned their Ph.D's for the exact same reasons. That is not selfish whatsoever. So, therefore you first sentence is competely wrong.
And plug-in electric cars do not pollute directly, but do serve to move all of the pollution to one concentrated location instead of distributed out among all automobiles. In the case of the centralized pollution, it is easier to control, filter, and scrub than when distributed. So, an electric only car would make sense in the case of a nuclear powered economy. Or a combined nuclear and hydrogen economy. Therefore, the idea should not be discredited completely.
Excellent posts. You have been spot-on in all of your replies.
And to let you know, our NiMH battery is in perfect condition and has never had to be replaced. The #1 unfounded fear and complaint of non-hybrid owners is the battery life. Considering we already have 120,000 miles on our battery pack and do not expect to replace the battery for another 100,000 miles, we are anything but worried about it. We have also spent $0 on non-rountine maintenance with our Insight. At +200,000 miles, I am not going to worry about battery replacement costs. For the few people who have gone over 200,000 miles that we have read/heard about, Honda has replaced the batteries for them for free.
Thank you for your intelligent posts. It is appreciated.
You are quick to label without knowing anything. You are an entertaining person to read and you appear in both of your posts to have a large chip on your shoulder. That is unfortunate. To inform you a little, I am neither a hard-core environmentalist nor a 'greenie', whatever stupid label people are using nowadays. I look at each issue on its own and make decisions accordingly.
While the rest of your response is completely brainless drivel, I agree with your point concerning breeder reactors and a hydrogen powered economy.
You also have to understand that gasoline is a hydrocarbon, therefore your argument is for pure hydrogen versus hydrocarbon. Until the processes for creating pure hydrogen are less polluting than using hydrocarbons, there will be no net benefit. I agree more time and money needs to be spent on this research.
Not everyone who earns their Ph.D. in a hard science does so with profit in mind. I certainly did not. I earned my Ph.D because I have a passion for Mathematics. It is the love of my life. If I were to discover something truly Earth-shattering to the point of changing mankind forever, I would give it away to everyone without a second thought.
What people do not understand is that almost everyone who does research does so because of their love for what they do. The funding organizations, companies, governments, etc. are the ones who are interested in keeping the information locked up for profit. And the only way most researchers can afford to spend the time and money on their research is to work under conditions where their discoveries become the property of those who pay for the work.
It is extremely sad and unfortunate that this has to occur. The largest tragedy of this is the fallout public image that causes people to think that all Ph.D researchers are only working for profit, when in fact that is almost never the case.
And I am careful to always some 'almost everyone' as there are in fact some researchers and Ph.D's who do soley work for profit. But, in this case, I do not believe that to be true.
Slashdot Mirror
Too bad your otherwise excellent post is ruined by this piece of completely false logic:
Neither science nor religion will ever be able to answer the ultimate question of "why?". It's an inherently unanswerable question
Based on what? Absolutely nothing. That statement is based on absolutely nothing except your personal opinion.
As both a Christian and a scientifically minded person
You are either one or the other but not both.
All religions are provably human fantasy created by humans for humans. A scientific minded person would have researched religions and their origins would have seen religions for exactly what they are. And therefore, being a scientifically minded person, they would not be religious at all.
Science is, for the most part, silent on the nature of God. He/she/it is, by definition, not measurable in this experience. It is my opinion that any discussion of God in a scientific context is pointless. There is no way to objectively sort out the competing claims for His/her/its existence.
No, your statements are completely religious based, and not representative of science whatsoever. Science is silent on the topic of religion because it is provable false. All religions are purely by humans for humans, based on nothing except human imagination and needs. It is easy to prove the origins of religion. But it is difficult to create a stronger mind. Therefore, people believe religion because they want to, even though it is obviously false. Anyone who is scientifically minded knows and sees religion for what it is and what role it plays in human society. And therefore, since religion is not scientific, scientists do not address it nor have any need to do so.
Excellent post.
To clarify a point you are trying to make, people do not realize that Einsteinian Physics is an extension of Newtonian Physics. If you start with Einsteinian Physics and work out/drop the variables which do not apply to your problem, you end up with Newtonian Physics. And the converse is also true. Everything can be calculated with Einsteinian Physics, but for simplicity, Newtonian Physics is taught when the complexity of the entire system is not needed.
"My personal view of things is that the universe seems arranged in such a way as to make life possible. Despite the tendancy of matter towards entrophy complex patterns can form from simpler ones. That smacks of something designed in my eyes."
It is too bad that you have the basis for good logical arguments throughout your post and then your last paragraph is completely false. The last sentence does not logically follow from the preceeding two sentences. You could draw whatever conclusion you wish using your logic above. Therefore, your conclusion is false.
"We are so arrogant to think that we are even capable of answering everything."
Based on what? Your personal opinion. I hear religious people say that drivel all of the time. It is based on absolutely nothing.
If you had a REAL science degree, which by your writing it is clear that you do not, you would know that there are a finite amount of logical, reproducable, and predictable rules which govern our universe and everything within it. All the questions in your fifth and sixth paragraphs are philosophical and religious questions and are meant for filler coursework during an undergrad degree. And you have a very poor understanding of Physics and Relativism for a couple of your questions. The fact of the matter is that the universe, as a whole, still contains mysteries which are not yet fully solved. But, that does not mean they are not completely solvable and understandable, and there is no proof otherwise.
I think you should go back to your Theology and Philosophy studies and stop claiming to be someone with a REAL science degree.
Simply because a book of folklore has a somewhat accurate timeline to some historical events does not make the entire book and its entire premise true. It is not any more true than Hindu, Egyptian, Voodoo, Aztec, American Indian, or 10000 other religions throughout time which are somewhat historically accurate at one point or another. Of course these writings are going to be somewhat accurate, they were created by humans for humans, after all and will inevitably include human historical information at various points in the story. But, whenever a historically accurate piece of information is discovered to be true, that is all that is true. It does not mean anything else is true because of it. Your logic and others like you are completely false.
It did not appear that the parent poster was assigning 'Intelligence' to anything. Assuming you are talking about make-believe religious beliefs. You understanding of natural selection is correct.
Ooops, I meant to write "as history has shown that to be not even close to true". Sorry, I hit the Submit button instead of the Preview button.
The problem is that your optimism is unfounded, especially your last sentence, as history has not shown that to be even close to true. This has never and will never happen between Apple and Linux. Hell, even OS/2 4.0 is still years and years ahead of Linux and OS/2 4.0 is going on 10 years old now. Apple will always be ahead of Linux, even 10-20 years from now. Apple always has and always will be unless something drastic happens.
To reinforce my point, the major drawback to Linux is simply 'death by committee'. Too many people wanting too many different things and nothing gets done. And what does get done is usually only half-assed in its implementation. Not all things on Linux, but the vast majority of them. What Linux needs is exactly two things that Apple has; one vision and strong leadership. Where would Apple be right now if it wasn't for Steve Jobs? Where would Microsoft be without Bill Gates? Exactly. What Linux needs is for one company and/or person to do the same thing. Otherwise, Linux will always be 2nd or 3rd to something else.
Although the Linux zeolots will jump on me for this, your post is exactly correct. This is another case of Linux trying to do what Apple OS X had already done.
I completely agree with you.
On another point is the entire hyprocracy of people in this country. They will fight to the bitter end about stem cells, because they believe they are 'alive', even if it means the loss of possible medical breakthroughs and scientific understanding for millions/billions of people. But, they are perfectly okay with killing tens of thousands of soldiers and civilians in wars to protect millions and billions of people. Religious people: Either you are for or against killing. You can't have it both ways, because one is a direct contradiction of the other.
I have never seen that to be true whatsoever. Burning CD's on Linux is easier than Right Click-->Send to CD in Windows? Not even close. Plus, the first time she has to install something new, like a program or a printer the Linux experience for her will become infinitely more complicated. Also, you have got to be kidding about the shoddy digital camera support under Windows. Are you talking about Windows 98? Under Windows XP, there hasn't been a single piece of USB or FireWire hardware that hasn't 'Just Worked' the instant I plug it in. With my Mom's digital camera, she simply plugged it into the USB port and Windows Explorer came up with all of her pictures in a folder, ready to go. Linux is nowhere near that easy to use.
I'm not a Windows fan, but you can't seriously say that Linux is as usable as Windows yet. The only way Linux will ever become easier to use than Windows will be to become better than Windows...aka OS X.
+2 Insightful? The moderation on this forum is getting worse and worse.
You sound like the typical Linux zealot and fan boy with your reply. OS X is not simply a BSD derivative that runs on an overpriced toaster. It is clearly obvious by your post that you have never used OS X. And it is clear that you have never done a clear, unbiased comparison of the two OS's either. OS X, quite honestly after years of using Linux, is what Linux will always wish to become. It is also a bonus that the Apple hardware that OS X runs on is exceptional as well.
Exactly. Plus, since IBM was not able to deliver the volume Apple needed, would not cuts the prices Apple needed, and would not produce a laptop G5 that Apple needed, Apple took the added value of OS X and simply moved to a new chip. Now that the OS is the added value to the Apple product line, the processor chip is inherently less important than the OS to the user experience.
The arguments do not make any sense. The same things could be said about Linux worshippers. Especially with their zealotry that everything must be Open Source. Would you want all of the software in the world to written half-assed by a bunch of hobbyists and every software company trying to survive on support services alone? Please. All of this computer conversation can be twisted what stupid way you want.
Honestly, Apple is both a hardware and software company and they are operating no differently than any other company. For example, it is the same as IBM selling AS/400 and RS6000 systems and bundling AIX which only runs on those systems. Apple is selling specially built PPC/x86 hardware and bundling OS X which only runs on these systems. There is no problem with this. They go hand-in-hand. On top of that, you will be able to run both OS X and Windows XP on the Apple hardware, so what is your bitch? Two years from now your system will be obsolete anyways, so when you upgrade, buy an Apple. And there is not a draconian policy by Apple on software development. You are free to develop on Apple exactly like any other operating system. And you are free to develop cross-platform applications as well. Hell, you are even free to develop directly on Darwin. So where is your bitch there?
If Apple controlled the computer industry today, the computer industry at the very least, would have some of the finest user interfaces ever invented. And 'Just Works' wouldn't be such a novelty. As far as your entire last sentence, your arguments are baseless and not in touch whatsoever with reality. There always was competition and there will always be competition to drive technology forward.
Wrong.
Definition:
Dictionary.com
Quote: Concerned chiefly or only with oneself
Therefore, your arguments are completely false. Nowhere in the definition of selfish is it defined as strictly the opposite of selfless. Or, to explain differently, nowhere in the definition of selfish does it define selfish as being everything that is not completely selfless. None of the reasons I love studying and teaching Mathematics are completely concerned with oneself. They are completely for the benefit of others. Any self-satisfaction I gain from that, is not selfish by definition. Your arguments were not very well thought-out nor researched. Better luck next time.
Quote: "No one is trying to discredit electric cars. If an electric car meets your needs -- in the words of Lee Iacocca -- "Buy it!" But don't try to claim some kind of moral high-ground."
Because you say so? That means nothing. As morals are completely subjective, your argument is essentially baseless and meaningless. But, in the essence of clarity, I will attempt to explain the situation further. For the sake of argument, it would be easier to argue that a higher moral ground is easier to obtain by someone who conserves resources, reduces current pollution levels, and attempts to reduce the current US dependence on oil amongst other factors than someone who uses mass amounts of resources, increases or maintains current pollution levels, and increases or maintains the current US dependence on oil amongst other factors. It is also easier to argue that a higher moral ground is easier to obtain by someone who has the choice between the two and does not choose the latter. Those arguments would define someone who is on a higher moral ground. If that bothers you, or you do not like it, that is simply too bad.
You are exactly correct.
+5 moderation. That's funny, all you have to do is post a link to get a +5 moderation even though the rest of your post is filled with baseless zealotry. So, are you a Linux fanboy? Or a Windows fanboy?
The fact of the matter is that OS X IS better than Linux on the desktop. Accept it. You sound like you have a simple case of jealousy. Get over it.
I would find it entertaining if your friends who use Apple's installed some various Linux PPC distribution on their Mac's just to show the Linux fan-boys that they can run Linux too. Will it be stable? No. Is it practical? No. But, hey, maybe some of them will even like it and switch.
It is refreshing to read your posts on Slashdot. You appear to be a clear, critical, and analytically thinking person. That is by far not a common trait of the Slashdot readership. I agree with everything you have written on this subject.
This paper is a classic case of 'soft science' (aka Psychology) trying to make hard factual statements from vaguely correlated or non-correlating data. And even worse, they use completely or near-completely incorrect terminology to describe a situation or condition.
More questions and more tests need to be taken to make sure of what is actually happening. A proper peer review would do just that.
To help further your understanding of the subject of hybrid cars, it would benefit you to follow the following conversation in a reply to my parent post:
Link
I am not posting as an environmentalist. You have labeled me incorrectly.
I agree with your point about nuclear power.
And you are completely wrong about your point concerning selfishness. What is correct is that not everyone in the world is selfish. You did not understand my original statement and then you took it out of context. A dictionary will help you to understand your mistake.
As an example, I love Mathematics and earned my Ph.D. in Mathematics. I also love to teach. I study and teach Mathematics solely for the benefit of science and mankind. Most of the people I know earned their Ph.D's for the exact same reasons. That is not selfish whatsoever. So, therefore you first sentence is competely wrong.
And plug-in electric cars do not pollute directly, but do serve to move all of the pollution to one concentrated location instead of distributed out among all automobiles. In the case of the centralized pollution, it is easier to control, filter, and scrub than when distributed. So, an electric only car would make sense in the case of a nuclear powered economy. Or a combined nuclear and hydrogen economy. Therefore, the idea should not be discredited completely.
Hey!,
Excellent posts. You have been spot-on in all of your replies.
And to let you know, our NiMH battery is in perfect condition and has never had to be replaced. The #1 unfounded fear and complaint of non-hybrid owners is the battery life. Considering we already have 120,000 miles on our battery pack and do not expect to replace the battery for another 100,000 miles, we are anything but worried about it. We have also spent $0 on non-rountine maintenance with our Insight. At +200,000 miles, I am not going to worry about battery replacement costs. For the few people who have gone over 200,000 miles that we have read/heard about, Honda has replaced the batteries for them for free.
Thank you for your intelligent posts. It is appreciated.
You are quick to label without knowing anything. You are an entertaining person to read and you appear in both of your posts to have a large chip on your shoulder. That is unfortunate. To inform you a little, I am neither a hard-core environmentalist nor a 'greenie', whatever stupid label people are using nowadays. I look at each issue on its own and make decisions accordingly.
While the rest of your response is completely brainless drivel, I agree with your point concerning breeder reactors and a hydrogen powered economy.
You also have to understand that gasoline is a hydrocarbon, therefore your argument is for pure hydrogen versus hydrocarbon. Until the processes for creating pure hydrogen are less polluting than using hydrocarbons, there will be no net benefit. I agree more time and money needs to be spent on this research.
Not everyone who earns their Ph.D. in a hard science does so with profit in mind. I certainly did not. I earned my Ph.D because I have a passion for Mathematics. It is the love of my life. If I were to discover something truly Earth-shattering to the point of changing mankind forever, I would give it away to everyone without a second thought.
What people do not understand is that almost everyone who does research does so because of their love for what they do. The funding organizations, companies, governments, etc. are the ones who are interested in keeping the information locked up for profit. And the only way most researchers can afford to spend the time and money on their research is to work under conditions where their discoveries become the property of those who pay for the work.
It is extremely sad and unfortunate that this has to occur. The largest tragedy of this is the fallout public image that causes people to think that all Ph.D researchers are only working for profit, when in fact that is almost never the case.
And I am careful to always some 'almost everyone' as there are in fact some researchers and Ph.D's who do soley work for profit. But, in this case, I do not believe that to be true.