E = mc2 is the most important upshot of relativity. Write a 5,000 word essay. Well, don't worry too much, someone did one earlier - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equivME/
This is only one example, outside my sphere of expertise, I can think of concerning just how difficult thinking, experiment and proof can be. How different it all is from moroneconomics that makes assumptions of standardised human behaviour and outcomes that bless the rich. I wonder what physics would be like if it allowed such prejudiced thinking? When I walk Max I'm rather proud of him - he does his business in our backyard and is an all round nice guy. I can't but notice our neighbours have let their dogs foul and that local kids foul with litter. We need quite draconian measures to stop the worst in our society levelling everything down to the midden and jungle. It seems reasonable not to expect the best as standard human behaviour. When I look at the stealing going on under the name of economics, politics or whatever I get the same feeling. As a scientist, I realised most people know very little of the reasoning and skills involved. One tries to be charitable and assume this is because they don't get the chance, but to be honest I've felt for a long time this is more to do with dullardry, ineptitude and laziness. I don't believe the natural human condition is one of hard work and animals are not much of a model for this. The 'busy bee' usually isn't and spends more time incumbent. When one looks at such as the consideration of mass and energy in physics, one should wonder on such matters as 'work' in human interaction, and how that may 'break down'. We don't and still live in the Dark Ages. If I ask for a 5,000 word essay on work motivation, 95% of responses from those forced to comply for qualification purposes will be a regurgitation of textbooks on Maslow, Hertzberg, Lawler and other 'names' (all dross). The odd student might start in such contradiction as that of the wealthy manager sated with money and the poor farmer in India saddled with debt. The content of management textbooks has long been a scandal and the only change I've noticed since the 1950s is 'weight and gloss'. They just weigh more these days, glossing over the same old trash One can note the same in legislative documents. Glass-Steagal was 30-odd pages, whereas the 'Facilitation of Bankster Fraud Acts' of modern times run to thousands. What strikes me as a scientist is that questions like what kind of a world do we want ourselves and others to live in, what is the work needed to do and maintain this and so on is all excluded. If physics was like economics we'd only be able to describe earth, wind, fire and water. All that's come from science in this direction is unwarranted abstraction, usually of maths-based 'proof'. The farce of our system lies in allowing people to get rich and then control wealth and politics. This is obvious. We rightly worry that simply overturning this only produces another set of such 'worthies' likely to be worse. We may even worry that the absence of such libidinal wealth opportunity takes away all motivation. Whatever this is about, it's not science. Unlike science, which you won't be doing unless you can demonstrate some competence, general argument assumes you have some. Hearing this, many fear the message is a call to be ruled by scientists. All the scientist really wants is a break from superstition.
