Disagree, basic research, no matter how dull, is an observation of a measured reality. Math Theory are patterns of abstraction that may never be useful at all or representative of reality.

Parent seems to conflate “abstract” with “useless”. This comment addresses the “abstract” part only.

> Math Theory are patterns of abstraction that may never be useful at all or representative of reality.

This is a complete misunderstanding of (good) mathematical research.

The results look abstract, but they are based on concepts that are real and have truth or falsehood.

One example that comes to mind (sorry, technical): is it possible that all maps from a high dimensional sphere to a three dimensional sphere (S^2) might form a group that is not even finitely generated?

This is not just “abstract nonsense”, but understanding any of this takes effort.

“May never be useful“? You make it sound as if there aren't countless examples of those "abstractions" of theory/pure math turning out to be useful in all kinds of fields in the past. This feels like the more general anti-science argument of 90% of science is useless and never produces practical applications, the point people never understand is that nobody knows which 10% it's going to be so you have to do the 100% to get to the 10%.