Knowing for the sake of knowing?

Nor again is it a lesser evil, that in their philosophies and contemplations their labor is spent in investigating and handling the first principles of things and highest generalities of nature; whereas utility and the means of working result entirely from things intermediate. Hence it is that men cease not from abstracting nature till they come to potential and uninformed matter, nor on the other hand from dissecting nature till they reach the atom; things which, even if true, can do but little for the welfare of mankind. (Bk 1, Aphorism 66)

Bacon, with his method, seeks to form a middle ground between two philosophies dealing with knowledge: one claiming that humanity knows everything and the other claiming that humanity knows nothing. The first is or should be universally rejected, and the second seems like it should be rejected as well, due to the possible interpretation that we can do nothing since we know nothing.

However, with the first principles and "highest generalities of nature," Bacon seems to advocate adopting the second extreme rather than his middle ground. He appears to reject delving into the universals, even if one were to correctly use his Baconian method. He argues this not because of the sheer difficulty of discovering a universal and asserting its validity, but because of the apparent uselessness of the endeavor, "even if true." Before even applying the scientific method, should we ask if the science is useful? Or should we consider all knowledge unconditionally good - to know for the sake of knowing? Knowing for the sake of knowledge was a theme brought up in the Tempest; Prospero lost his kingship since he dedicated his time to reading and obtaining knowledge. Before allocating resources and sacrificing time for a scientific project, should we first consider the project's potential utility?