>>14371001Science and technology provide the most important examples of surrogate activities. Some
scientists claim that they are motivated by “curiosity” or by a desire to “benefit humanity.” But it
is easy to see that neither of these can be the principal motive of most scientists. As for “curiosity,”
that notion is simply absurd. Most scientists work on highly specialized problems that are not the
object of any normal curiosity. For example, is an astronomer, a mathematician or an entomologist
curious about the properties of isopropyltrimethylmethane? Of course not. Only a chemist is
curious about such a thing, and he is curious about it only because chemistry is his surrogate
activity. Is the chemist curious about the appropriate classification of a new species of beetle?
No. That question is of interest only to the entomologist, and he is interested in it only because
entomology is his surrogate activity. If the chemist and the entomologist had to exert themselves
seriously to obtain the physical necessities, and if that effort exercised their abilities in an
interesting way but in some nonscientific pursuit, then they wouldn’t give a damn about
isopropyltrimethylmethane or the classification of beetles. Suppose that lack of funds for
postgraduate education had led the chemist to become an insurance broker instead of a chemist. In
that case he would have been very interested in insurance matters but would have cared nothing
about isopropyltrimethylmethane. In any case it is not normal to put into the satisfaction of mere
curiosity the amount of time and effort that scientists put into their work. The “curiosity”
explanation for the scientists’ motive just doesn’t stand up
