4 ms·

> yes it is, but where does this fundamental science helps in everyday problems? PhD or not, this is an oddly utilitarian view of science. I suspect there wou

> yes it is, but where does this fundamental science helps in everyday problems? PhD or not, this is an oddly utilitarian view of science. I suspect there would be countless discoveries that never would have been made had we only ever weighed an experiment based purely on its ability to "help in everyday problems". I mean, why, say, develop the theory of evolution? At the time that was irrelevant to "everyday problems". Today our understanding of evolution is valuable in countless settings, but at the time? At best it was an interesting exercise in trying to understand the natural world. And yet by this reckoning we never would've bothered.

cookingmyserver 4y ago
I think it is important to remember the context of the discussion. I think I it is completely reasonable, and not odd at all, to have a utilitarian view of science, when you are talking about spending $100 Billion.
- BaseballPhysics 4y ago
  Alright. I agree, that's certainly a very valid point. So would you have cancelled the moon landing program? In 2020 dollars that program cost over $257B (over $400B if you count related programs and costs)[1], and that goal--landing humans on the moon--has demonstrated very little utility. [1]: https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-apollo https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-apollo
  - LordDragonfang 4y ago
    It had utility to the US government in demonstrating to the Russians our ability to accurately move payloads on the planetary scale. Actually landing on the moon was just a conveniently goal-aligned PR win. Beyond that though, being able to put things at that scale in orbit has shown major dividends at in every sector.
    - BaseballPhysics 4y ago
      > It had utility to the US government in demonstrating to the Russians our ability to accurately move payloads on the planetary scale. Actually landing on the moon was just a conveniently goal-aligned PR win. Beyond that though, being able to put things at that scale in orbit has shown major dividends at in every sector. You don't need to put men on the surface of the moon to gain any of these benefits. The US government could've spent far less to achieve those same outcomes. And that's ignoring the fact that, particularly regarding those "major dividends", much of those justifications can only be made in hindsight. At the time I think it would've been difficult to justify the moonshot on that kind of utilitarian basis.
      - Invictus0 4y ago
        But why are you talking out of your ass? The point of going to the moon was never to dimly increase utility to the public. JFK took us to the moon because "No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space". https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/historic-speeches/address-to-joint-session-of-congress-may-25-1961 https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/historic-speeches...
        BaseballPhysics 4y ago
        > But why are you talking out of your ass? Keep it civil, please. > The point of going to the moon was never to dimly increase utility to the public. I think maybe you've lost the thread of the conversation? The original claim was that scientific research/projects should be funded based on evident utility. My point is that if you fund such projects purely based on immediately evident utility, then projects like Apollo (among many others) don't happen. My unspoken corollary is that that would represent a loss to humanity, and that pure utilitarianism is too narrow a frame to use when assessing the value of a given project. Honestly, I think we're in agreement, here, and I'm not sure I understand your aggressive response.
  - whatshisface 4y ago
    A lot of people wanted to cancel the moon landing program while it was happening, and they eventually did.
    - BaseballPhysics 4y ago
      And yet many ascribe a whole range of knock-on benefits as a consequence of the Apollo missions. Had those people had their way, one wonders what technologies we wouldn't have today because, in the moment, no one could find a clear utilitarian justification for the program.
      - gralx 4y ago
        Knock-on effects can just as well be ascribed to alternative targets for those Apollo funds. Those don't take much imagination to come up with, e.g. reducing the student-teacher ratios in schools.
        delusional 4y ago
        Often politics is not a question of "funding this good thing or funding this great thing", but rather "funding this good thing that we can agree on, or funding nothing".
        gralx 4y ago
        Politicians sometimes do the wrong thing is a truism, no?
  - lupire 4y ago
    Maybe if we spent a few more years improving computers and materials before so many launches, we could have done more with less money. Likewise for the disastrous Shuttle program.
- XorNot 4y ago
  That $100 billion doesn't vanish into thin air. It principally goes into plant and equipment to build the machine, as well as research into high tech manufacturing for the same. The world wide web which we are currently using was invented at CERN. You can literally go look at the proposal manuscript.
  - credit_guy 4y ago
    Where does this argument stop? 1 trillion, 10 trillion?
    - duped 4y ago
      Ideally never
  - rhn_mk1 4y ago
    Isn't that the economic theory of broken windows? Given the choice between alternatives, added value should be considered, not added cost.
    - XorNot 4y ago
      The problem with the the broken window narrative is that while invalid, it's counter-argument is also too simplistic when dealing with issues on the level of nation states. Suppose you have a city where windows never get broken. So there's no demand for glazing for a few years. So the glaziers all go out of business and move onto other things - they break down their machines and factories and repurpose them. Then there's a minor earthquake and it breaks a lot of windows. But the cost to replace them is enormous - there's no glass making business anymore! What should have cost a few hundred dollars costs hundreds of thousands because the machines and people need to be built and retrained, and the quality for a few months is kind of bad as well. What should the city have done? Well, one answer would be to break some windows regularly to keep at least one glazier operating. Or we could pay the glazier to make windows we don't use right now, or ask them to build better windows under government grant to keep them available and maybe come up with an improved window design...etc. etc. etc. A machine on the scale of the LHC doesn't get made in a factory which makes LHCs. It gets made in literally tens of thousands of businesses, each of which services a big order for some type of precision part that's either within their capabilities or that they might believe can be accomplished if demanded. Once they can do that, that becomes the new thing that everyone else can now buy potentially. So yes, sure - let's talk about added value, but when "choosing between alternatives" you need to have some actual, reasonable alternatives. The postulate here - build ITER instead for fusion power - is exactly the same sort of project. And the reality is we can and should do both.
- SiempreViernes 4y ago
  Well, 30 billion EUR, so not 100 billion dollars unless the US has some really bad inflation.
- godelski 4y ago
  > when you are talking about spending UPWARDS of $100 billion, split over 10 years and over a dozen countries. FTFY Honestly, these are country budgets. That's not an insane amount of money. It is Germany spending $2bn/yr at the 5x inflated budget but $500m/yr at the estimated cost (23bn).
- guerrilla 4y ago
  That's a different question though and they were not arguing that point at all. Their claim was that it had no value unless it was useful and that it's not useful, both parts of which are clearly false. Is its value worth $100 is another topic (the actual topic of this post I supposed.)
bnralt 4y ago
At a certain point we have to make choices about what gets funded. Even if you think much more money should be going into science, you still have to decide what takes priority, and you're going to eventually run into some limits. One can take the view (as many seem to) that if it's science it should be funded, but that's not useful for any discussion of resource allocation. If someone doesn't have a preference, then it makes sense for the people who do have preferences to decide. Also keep in mind that some scientific endeavors can make other ones much more productive, so prioritizing things correctly can increase the overall output by a large amount (and neglecting to prioritize things correctly can significantly slow output).
thehappypm 4y ago
Hertz on the discovery of radio waves: “I do not think that the wireless waves I have discovered will have any practical application”.
- lupire 4y ago
  Hertz was humble or unambitious, but everyone else saw the obvious value. Radio was commercialized within 3 years.
hypertele-Xii 4y ago
> I mean, why, say, develop the theory of evolution? At the time that was irrelevant to "everyday problems". "Charles Darwin discussed how selective breeding had been successful in producing change over time in his 1859 book, On the Origin of Species. Its first chapter discusses selective breeding and domestication of such animals as pigeons, cats, cattle, and dogs." (Wikipedia) Darwin's theory of evolution was literally developed to explain the most significant food growing technique since irrigation. Seems very practical to the everyday problem of not starving.
- BaseballPhysics 4y ago
  > Darwin's theory of evolution was literally developed to explain the most significant food growing technique since irrigation. Correct. The theory of evolution explained selective breeding. But it wasn't needed to practice selective breeding, given it had been going on for literally millenia prior.
  - hypertele-Xii 4y ago
    What's your point? That we shouldn't research medicine because humans have been using plants with healing properties since forever? That we shouldn't study the world because we're already living in it? That it's useless to explain one's self since one already exists?
    - BaseballPhysics 4y ago
      I thought my point was obvious. As a reminder, the original commenter stated they felt that research shouldn't be funded if there isn't a clear benefit/application. I.e. a utilitarian argument regarding research funding. I used the theory of evolution as an example of research that, at the time, had no utilitarian value, but ultimately ended up enormously important. You then countered that Darwin was, in part, trying to explain how selective breeding worked, and therefore the research had utility at the time. I countered that no, that's not practical utility because understanding the mechanisms underlying selective breeding isn't necessary to do it; that simply explaining the natural world does not represent practical utility (if it did, we wouldn't be debating whether high energy research, which simply seeks to explain the natural world, is worth funding). Therefore your comment does not invalidate my example of evolution as research that had no practical value or utility at the time. My point in all of this is we should engage in research even if it doesn't have immediate, practical value because we can't know what research will or won't be useful in the fullness of time. And that's ignoring the fact that I, in fact, absolutely agree with you that we should engage in research simply because learning about the natural world is a worthwhile pursuit. Meanwhile, I honestly don't know what point you're trying to make given the context of the discussion.

cookingmyserver 4y ago

I think it is important to remember the context of the discussion. I think I it is completely reasonable, and not odd at all, to have a utilitarian view of science, when you are talking about spending $100 Billion.

BaseballPhysics 4y ago
Alright. I agree, that's certainly a very valid point. So would you have cancelled the moon landing program? In 2020 dollars that program cost over $257B (over $400B if you count related programs and costs)[1], and that goal--landing humans on the moon--has demonstrated very little utility. [1]: https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-apollo https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-apollo
- LordDragonfang 4y ago
  It had utility to the US government in demonstrating to the Russians our ability to accurately move payloads on the planetary scale. Actually landing on the moon was just a conveniently goal-aligned PR win. Beyond that though, being able to put things at that scale in orbit has shown major dividends at in every sector.
  - BaseballPhysics 4y ago
    > It had utility to the US government in demonstrating to the Russians our ability to accurately move payloads on the planetary scale. Actually landing on the moon was just a conveniently goal-aligned PR win. Beyond that though, being able to put things at that scale in orbit has shown major dividends at in every sector. You don't need to put men on the surface of the moon to gain any of these benefits. The US government could've spent far less to achieve those same outcomes. And that's ignoring the fact that, particularly regarding those "major dividends", much of those justifications can only be made in hindsight. At the time I think it would've been difficult to justify the moonshot on that kind of utilitarian basis.
    - Invictus0 4y ago
      But why are you talking out of your ass? The point of going to the moon was never to dimly increase utility to the public. JFK took us to the moon because "No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space". https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/historic-speeches/address-to-joint-session-of-congress-may-25-1961 https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/historic-speeches...
      - BaseballPhysics 4y ago
        > But why are you talking out of your ass? Keep it civil, please. > The point of going to the moon was never to dimly increase utility to the public. I think maybe you've lost the thread of the conversation? The original claim was that scientific research/projects should be funded based on evident utility. My point is that if you fund such projects purely based on immediately evident utility, then projects like Apollo (among many others) don't happen. My unspoken corollary is that that would represent a loss to humanity, and that pure utilitarianism is too narrow a frame to use when assessing the value of a given project. Honestly, I think we're in agreement, here, and I'm not sure I understand your aggressive response.
- whatshisface 4y ago
  A lot of people wanted to cancel the moon landing program while it was happening, and they eventually did.
  - BaseballPhysics 4y ago
    And yet many ascribe a whole range of knock-on benefits as a consequence of the Apollo missions. Had those people had their way, one wonders what technologies we wouldn't have today because, in the moment, no one could find a clear utilitarian justification for the program.
    - gralx 4y ago
      Knock-on effects can just as well be ascribed to alternative targets for those Apollo funds. Those don't take much imagination to come up with, e.g. reducing the student-teacher ratios in schools.
      - delusional 4y ago
        Often politics is not a question of "funding this good thing or funding this great thing", but rather "funding this good thing that we can agree on, or funding nothing".
        gralx 4y ago
        Politicians sometimes do the wrong thing is a truism, no?
- lupire 4y ago
  Maybe if we spent a few more years improving computers and materials before so many launches, we could have done more with less money. Likewise for the disastrous Shuttle program.
XorNot 4y ago
That $100 billion doesn't vanish into thin air. It principally goes into plant and equipment to build the machine, as well as research into high tech manufacturing for the same. The world wide web which we are currently using was invented at CERN. You can literally go look at the proposal manuscript.
- credit_guy 4y ago
  Where does this argument stop? 1 trillion, 10 trillion?
  - duped 4y ago
    Ideally never
- rhn_mk1 4y ago
  Isn't that the economic theory of broken windows? Given the choice between alternatives, added value should be considered, not added cost.
  - XorNot 4y ago
    The problem with the the broken window narrative is that while invalid, it's counter-argument is also too simplistic when dealing with issues on the level of nation states. Suppose you have a city where windows never get broken. So there's no demand for glazing for a few years. So the glaziers all go out of business and move onto other things - they break down their machines and factories and repurpose them. Then there's a minor earthquake and it breaks a lot of windows. But the cost to replace them is enormous - there's no glass making business anymore! What should have cost a few hundred dollars costs hundreds of thousands because the machines and people need to be built and retrained, and the quality for a few months is kind of bad as well. What should the city have done? Well, one answer would be to break some windows regularly to keep at least one glazier operating. Or we could pay the glazier to make windows we don't use right now, or ask them to build better windows under government grant to keep them available and maybe come up with an improved window design...etc. etc. etc. A machine on the scale of the LHC doesn't get made in a factory which makes LHCs. It gets made in literally tens of thousands of businesses, each of which services a big order for some type of precision part that's either within their capabilities or that they might believe can be accomplished if demanded. Once they can do that, that becomes the new thing that everyone else can now buy potentially. So yes, sure - let's talk about added value, but when "choosing between alternatives" you need to have some actual, reasonable alternatives. The postulate here - build ITER instead for fusion power - is exactly the same sort of project. And the reality is we can and should do both.
SiempreViernes 4y ago
Well, 30 billion EUR, so not 100 billion dollars unless the US has some really bad inflation.
godelski 4y ago
> when you are talking about spending UPWARDS of $100 billion, split over 10 years and over a dozen countries. FTFY Honestly, these are country budgets. That's not an insane amount of money. It is Germany spending $2bn/yr at the 5x inflated budget but $500m/yr at the estimated cost (23bn).
guerrilla 4y ago
That's a different question though and they were not arguing that point at all. Their claim was that it had no value unless it was useful and that it's not useful, both parts of which are clearly false. Is its value worth $100 is another topic (the actual topic of this post I supposed.)

bnralt 4y ago

At a certain point we have to make choices about what gets funded. Even if you think much more money should be going into science, you still have to decide what takes priority, and you're going to eventually run into some limits. One can take the view (as many seem to) that if it's science it should be funded, but that's not useful for any discussion of resource allocation. If someone doesn't have a preference, then it makes sense for the people who do have preferences to decide. Also keep in mind that some scientific endeavors can make other ones much more productive, so prioritizing things correctly can increase the overall output by a large amount (and neglecting to prioritize things correctly can significantly slow output).

thehappypm 4y ago

Hertz on the discovery of radio waves: “I do not think that the wireless waves I have discovered will have any practical application”.

lupire 4y ago
Hertz was humble or unambitious, but everyone else saw the obvious value. Radio was commercialized within 3 years.

hypertele-Xii 4y ago

> I mean, why, say, develop the theory of evolution? At the time that was irrelevant to "everyday problems". "Charles Darwin discussed how selective breeding had been successful in producing change over time in his 1859 book, On the Origin of Species. Its first chapter discusses selective breeding and domestication of such animals as pigeons, cats, cattle, and dogs." (Wikipedia) Darwin's theory of evolution was literally developed to explain the most significant food growing technique since irrigation. Seems very practical to the everyday problem of not starving.

BaseballPhysics 4y ago
> Darwin's theory of evolution was literally developed to explain the most significant food growing technique since irrigation. Correct. The theory of evolution explained selective breeding. But it wasn't needed to practice selective breeding, given it had been going on for literally millenia prior.
- hypertele-Xii 4y ago
  What's your point? That we shouldn't research medicine because humans have been using plants with healing properties since forever? That we shouldn't study the world because we're already living in it? That it's useless to explain one's self since one already exists?
  - BaseballPhysics 4y ago
    I thought my point was obvious. As a reminder, the original commenter stated they felt that research shouldn't be funded if there isn't a clear benefit/application. I.e. a utilitarian argument regarding research funding. I used the theory of evolution as an example of research that, at the time, had no utilitarian value, but ultimately ended up enormously important. You then countered that Darwin was, in part, trying to explain how selective breeding worked, and therefore the research had utility at the time. I countered that no, that's not practical utility because understanding the mechanisms underlying selective breeding isn't necessary to do it; that simply explaining the natural world does not represent practical utility (if it did, we wouldn't be debating whether high energy research, which simply seeks to explain the natural world, is worth funding). Therefore your comment does not invalidate my example of evolution as research that had no practical value or utility at the time. My point in all of this is we should engage in research even if it doesn't have immediate, practical value because we can't know what research will or won't be useful in the fullness of time. And that's ignoring the fact that I, in fact, absolutely agree with you that we should engage in research simply because learning about the natural world is a worthwhile pursuit. Meanwhile, I honestly don't know what point you're trying to make given the context of the discussion.