The Guardian's G2 has a feature today on 'Ten questions science must answer'. It's introduced by Martin Rees, and then 10 other people nominate 'the puzzles they would love to see solved'. There's some food for thought, and here are three thoughts of mine about three thoughts of theirs.
1. Mark Miodownik talks about a new technology that's going to enable us to have - because to make for ourselves - highly individuated things, so that we will no longer be subject to the uniformities of mass production. Well, that's fine by me; but I resist the 'giv[ing] us back our individuality' suggestion of Miodownik's title (whether or not he chose it himself). Individuality doesn't depend on not owning or using the same kinds of thing as other people do. Like... 'Oh dear, I see that you too have a phone. And a television set. And books as well, begorrah!' Or from an earlier era: 'Sigh - not another vehicle with wheels.' There are many reasons why our individuality isn't just dependent on the objects we have and use, but one of them will be evident if you visit a few dwellings. You'll find that although people have phones and TVs and fridges and books and garden implements and furniture and pictures, the insides of their houses don't all look the same. They put some individual stamp on these through the variety within what they have, the arrangements and so on. Good for this new technology, but it wasn't all that bad before.
2. 'Can we make a scientific way of thinking all[-]pervasive?' asks Brian Cox. If he's just asking if we can get a scientific way of thinking to prevail where it needs to prevail, that's one thing. But if he really means, can we get it to pervade everything? - then it looks like being a candidate for John Rentoul's series 'Questions to which the answer is no'. Would you even want a scientific way of thinking to be all-pervasive? You're snuggled up with your one and only, feeling full of love and on top of the world; when a voice in your head says 'You are not really on top of the world; you should understand the biology here'. I don't think so.
3. I'm glad to see Marcus du Sautoy choosing 'Is there a pattern to the prime numbers?' Whether or not finding the answer to this question proves to be useful, it's just wonderful that there are questions like it that engage human curiosity. I've always loved this question about primes, it would be great to get the answer to it, and bravo to humankind that we pursue such things. (Thanks: E.)
