tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6737941.post112536743456742287..comments2024-01-14T17:27:30.511-05:00Comments on Law, Legislation, and Lunacy: General Theory of DiscoveryDavidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14364155797420903461noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6737941.post-1125416033902047752005-08-30T11:33:00.000-04:002005-08-30T11:33:00.000-04:00Well, we don't know if the firm would have gone ba...Well, we don't know if the firm would have gone bankrupt or not. But even if it had, another firm would've picked it up from there if that firm didn't (as the airlines teach us, just because one goes bankrupt doesn't mean one disappears).<BR/><BR/>Just because government funded technology yeilds benefits, doesn't mean that's the only way to get those benefits. Yes, pure research is risky. Yes, it's expensive. But it is for those very reasons that government funding so easily crowds it out. It doesn't mean private organizations don't do it or governments have to to get it done. Not that many Nobel prize winners teach or did their grad work at private institutions.<BR/><BR/>"It contributes incentive and material to scientific endeavors that might not have any direct industrial purpose, but that will undoubtedly be utilized in industry eventually."<BR/><BR/>Unless you have a time machine, you don't know that they will have application and even if it does, it again doesn't mean that private funding won't get there. Let us remember there are several disadvantages to public funding.<BR/>-You are more subject to political perceptions (it's hard to get funding for stem cell research, for example).<BR/>-You are less independent; politicians become your boss and by extension, you might have to play politics with your conclusions.<BR/>-You are subject to administration changes who's funding and priorities can wreck havoc on research plans that span decades.<BR/><BR/>"but the technology available and the knowledge necessary for fighting cancer wasn't there at the time of Apollo."<BR/><BR/>Considering we knew nothing about the Moon when the Apollo program started, it would be foolish to think that the same kind of advancement wouldn't have happened in cancer treatment.<BR/><BR/>"Also, the best innovations in science haven't been made in a commercial setting."<BR/><BR/>That's a rather bold claim and it simply doesn't hold. While the term "best" is subjective, the reality is most innovations of the past century have occured in mixed environments. Usually, it starts out as military (for the basic idea) and then moves to commerical application (adding all those thousands of equally vauable improvements). Microwaves, internet and microprocessors are the more famous examples.<BR/><BR/>I'll defend government military funding; it's necessary for national security. But in light of that funding, we don't need to pay people taxpayer money to just sit around, think and spend more looted dollars.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14364155797420903461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6737941.post-1125371131316081952005-08-29T23:05:00.000-04:002005-08-29T23:05:00.000-04:00Without Einstein and Relativity, the firm responsi...Without Einstein and Relativity, the firm responsible for putting those satellites into orbit would have almost certainly gone bankrupt. Satellites are prohibitively expensive, and to put a bunch of nonfunctional ones into orbit is the kind of thing that gets even NASA into trouble.<BR/><BR/>So if relativity doesn't fall into the category of government-funded research, what does? Look at virtually any American nobel prize winner, and you'll find government money. The REU program, a fantastically sucessful program for giving undergrads research experience, is an NSF program. Heck, the entire field of rocket science was government-controlled.<BR/><BR/>"Government funded science simply isn't neccessary for a well functioning economy."<BR/><BR/>Well, no, not directly. But government-funded science contributes a fantastic amount to the scientific and technical community. It contributes incentive and material to scientific endeavors that might not have any direct industrial purpose, but that will undoubtedly be utilized in industry eventually.<BR/><BR/>"It's like when people say the $118 billion (2000 dollars) that NASA spent on the Apollo program was worth it until I point out that money probably could have been used to make huge leaps in fighting cancer."<BR/><BR/>Perhaps that's true, but the technology available and the knowledge necessary for fighting cancer wasn't there at the time of Apollo. Back then, they were still using WWII-style mustard gases to fight cancer. Cancer also wasn't beginning to come into public focus at the time. Investing that money into the system of the time, coupled with public disinterest compared with space, would have been foolish.<BR/><BR/>Also, the best innovations in science haven't been made in a commercial setting. Lack of transparency, fear of the loss of a competitive edge, all of these things run contrary to the open, public nature of science. Nobody ever won a nobel prize (with the notable exception of Fritz Haber) by trying to sell more books/pants/GPS units. Commerce draws from science, not the other way around.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com