6 ms·

A lay person like a politician can complain they get no return on their investment, for example

by iopq 4y ago

bowsamic 4y ago
Thankfully politicians don't think of science in terms of "return on investment" Obviously it must be justified as scientifically important, but they do not expect "something back". Government agencies generally take a more blurry and general approach to R&D, since you cannot predict what comes out of a given experiment. No one predicted an absolute revolution in squeezed light from gravitational wave detection for example. Einstein Telescope and Cosmic Explorer will probably both get funded even though the science case is very minimal and they will cost many billions
- boltzmann-brain 4y ago
  After fifty years and $x T of investment you can easily tell that something's a waste of money. I say that as someone with background in physics. This is another "industry for its own sake", just like the nasa/aerospace/boeing industrial complex, which was clearly so terrible that people decided to overthrow it, and in 10 years we've reached more progress than those people did since the 70s.
  - bowsamic 4y ago
    But no one who actually controls any money thinks that LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA or LHC or whatever were wastes of money
    - boltzmann-brain 4y ago
      Which is a fair observation because that's exactly the crux of the problem.
      - bowsamic 4y ago
        I don't understand why you think it's a problem
- User23 4y ago
  Politicians think of Big Science in terms of appropriations and sending cash to their principals, who are neither the electorate nor scientists. They don’t consider any money that buys their re-election a waste. They don’t give a rat’s ass if you discover anything and it sounds like you know it. So-called science these days is little different from military spending. As usual, follow the money.
  - bowsamic 4y ago
    Politicians generally have almost no influence in scientific spending other than "here is a big block of R&D money". Those who dish out the money are not elected officials, at least not elected by the public.
    - User23 4y ago
      It’s certainly true that the decades long continuing wealth transfer away from the middle class to well-connected elites that incidentally funds your work involves more than just elected politicians. As you note unelected bureaucrats also have their role to play, as do lawyers, lobbyists, and a whole host of other classes of more or less directly involved grifters in addition to ancillary beneficiaries such as yourself. It is nice to see your correct assessment of the irrelevance of the will of the electorate though. Until that becomes broadly understood I see little hope of any meaningful reform.
      - bowsamic 4y ago
        I don't think the public expect that their completely uneducated opinion on physics is in any way relevant to funding. Do you seriously think this will come as a shock to anyone?
        User23 4y ago
        Perhaps this lack of observational ability is a factor in your drought of new theoretical discoveries? It’s indisputable that the public believes that its completely uneducated opinion on any number of things is relevant to funding in particular and policy in general. That’s rather the point of democracy. It’s not even a terrible system. I don’t have to be an expert on automobiles to rationally believe that we should spend less money on automobile infrastructure and more money on bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. Similarly nobody has to be an expert on particle physics to believe that money could better be spent elsewhere. When I clicked this story I was generally in favor of funding this research, but to a quite small extent the submission and to a considerably greater extent your clarification of the attitude of practitioners has gone a long way toward convincing me that it is in fact a complete waste of money. Granted, we both agree that government spending is almost entirely undemocratic. And as I said, I appreciate your dispensing with that pretense.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > Thankfully politicians don't think of science in terms of "return on investment" It's a very strange thing to think you can speak for "politicians."

A lay person like a politician can complain they get no return on their investment, for example

by iopq 4y ago

A lay person like a politician can complain they get no return on their investment, for example

Thankfully politicians don't think of science in terms of "return on investment" Obviously it must be justified as scientifically important, but they do not expect "something back". Government agencies generally take a more blurry and general approach to R&D, since you cannot predict what comes out of a given experiment. No one predicted an absolute revolution in squeezed light from gravitational wave detection for example. Einstein Telescope and Cosmic Explorer will probably both get funded even though the science case is very minimal and they will cost many billions

boltzmann-brain 4y ago
After fifty years and $x T of investment you can easily tell that something's a waste of money. I say that as someone with background in physics. This is another "industry for its own sake", just like the nasa/aerospace/boeing industrial complex, which was clearly so terrible that people decided to overthrow it, and in 10 years we've reached more progress than those people did since the 70s.
- bowsamic 4y ago
  But no one who actually controls any money thinks that LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA or LHC or whatever were wastes of money
  - boltzmann-brain 4y ago
    Which is a fair observation because that's exactly the crux of the problem.
    - bowsamic 4y ago
      I don't understand why you think it's a problem
User23 4y ago
Politicians think of Big Science in terms of appropriations and sending cash to their principals, who are neither the electorate nor scientists. They don’t consider any money that buys their re-election a waste. They don’t give a rat’s ass if you discover anything and it sounds like you know it. So-called science these days is little different from military spending. As usual, follow the money.
- bowsamic 4y ago
  Politicians generally have almost no influence in scientific spending other than "here is a big block of R&D money". Those who dish out the money are not elected officials, at least not elected by the public.
  - User23 4y ago
    It’s certainly true that the decades long continuing wealth transfer away from the middle class to well-connected elites that incidentally funds your work involves more than just elected politicians. As you note unelected bureaucrats also have their role to play, as do lawyers, lobbyists, and a whole host of other classes of more or less directly involved grifters in addition to ancillary beneficiaries such as yourself. It is nice to see your correct assessment of the irrelevance of the will of the electorate though. Until that becomes broadly understood I see little hope of any meaningful reform.
    - bowsamic 4y ago
      I don't think the public expect that their completely uneducated opinion on physics is in any way relevant to funding. Do you seriously think this will come as a shock to anyone?
      - User23 4y ago
        Perhaps this lack of observational ability is a factor in your drought of new theoretical discoveries? It’s indisputable that the public believes that its completely uneducated opinion on any number of things is relevant to funding in particular and policy in general. That’s rather the point of democracy. It’s not even a terrible system. I don’t have to be an expert on automobiles to rationally believe that we should spend less money on automobile infrastructure and more money on bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. Similarly nobody has to be an expert on particle physics to believe that money could better be spent elsewhere. When I clicked this story I was generally in favor of funding this research, but to a quite small extent the submission and to a considerably greater extent your clarification of the attitude of practitioners has gone a long way toward convincing me that it is in fact a complete waste of money. Granted, we both agree that government spending is almost entirely undemocratic. And as I said, I appreciate your dispensing with that pretense.
pessimizer 4y ago
> Thankfully politicians don't think of science in terms of "return on investment" It's a very strange thing to think you can speak for "politicians."