> The photoelectric effect was first discovered in silver chloride solution. I don't know that much about the energy bands of silver chloride, so I won't comment about whether that was a semiconductor.
Had the first example of the photoelectric effect originated in a semiconductor, that cannot be used to argue that the research was motivated by the goal of practical application. By that reasoning, the fact that particle physics is about atoms, and that atoms can be used to make weapons, could be used to construct an absurd argument that all research that involves atoms has the ultimate goal of designing weapons.
> The article claims that science, with the goal of building cool military applications (or presumably life tables or brewing beer) will work better than curiosity driven applications.
The phrase "curiosity driven applications" assumes what it should be proving. Not all curiosity into nature has application in mind, indeed that's not now pure research is defined.
> You are defining "pure" in a far more expansive way than the article does.
Pure research is research meant to discover properties of nature, without any concern for practical application. That's hardly worth discussing as though there's any controversy about the definition.
Had the first example of the photoelectric effect originated in a semiconductor, that cannot be used to argue that the research was motivated by the goal of practical application. By that reasoning, the fact that particle physics is about atoms, and that atoms can be used to make weapons, could be used to construct an absurd argument that all research that involves atoms has the ultimate goal of designing weapons.
> The article claims that science, with the goal of building cool military applications (or presumably life tables or brewing beer) will work better than curiosity driven applications.
The phrase "curiosity driven applications" assumes what it should be proving. Not all curiosity into nature has application in mind, indeed that's not now pure research is defined.
> You are defining "pure" in a far more expansive way than the article does.
Pure research is research meant to discover properties of nature, without any concern for practical application. That's hardly worth discussing as though there's any controversy about the definition.