6 ms·

The descent into scientific ignorance continues. What possible justification could you have for this?

monero-xmr 1y ago
There is no market test for “fundamental” research. So when an avenue of research secures taxpayer funding it exists into perpetuity, and as papers are published and requests for additional funding are made, it tends to grow like a tumor over the decades, getting more PhDs to be matriculated in the labs that began the avenue and grow ever more forever. Very rarely is an avenue of research closed off once the trifecta of university research labs + journals, PhDs who are minted to continue the research, and grants secured and grown. A lot of the hand wringing by academics themselves are unfocused but circling the root cause, which is this. I would prefer corporations fund research but directed through the university system. The patents and gains are then funneled through the corporations that funded it, rather than the academics and universities with zero return to the taxpayers other than abstract “society gains” pablum, when the academics and universities truly gain all the profit. When corporations that actually have a market test and profit motive are funding the research, avenues that are unlikely to succeed will be cut off sooner, and alternatives to the current vogue will be funded quicker. You can see a real-life example (of failure) in Alzheimer’s research which was hamstrung by decades of political control of research labs and taxpayer grants that refused to fund alternatives to the “mainstream” theories which set back society and the disease. You asked for the justification and I provided it
- intermerda 1y ago
  Under your system what is the corporate incentive to study health effects of smoking?
  - monero-xmr 1y ago
    A pharmaceutical company interested in curing millions of people dying of smoking would fund it
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
- hodgesrm 1y ago
  > When corporations that actually have a market test and profit motive are funding the research, avenues that are unlikely to succeed will be cut off sooner... It's hard to see how your suggestion would work for fundamental advances in technology. For example, backpropagation took decades to move from an idea to industrial use. [0] It was also "invented" multiple times. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backpropagation#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backpropagation#History
  - oefrha 1y ago
    Explaining the value of fundamental research and long term societal investment to some crypto bro is an utter waste of time. Polar opposite mindset.
    - monero-xmr 1y ago
      I understood the value of crypto well before the vast majority of people and made a significant amount of money. While that isn’t an argument in favor of my opinions on other subjects, the pejorative of “crypto bro” is certainly inaccurate considering I noticed a massive profit opportunity well before most others, and instead should signal that I have heterodox opinions that might be accurate before the small-c conservatives (i.e. academics writ large) accept the truths
      - oefrha 1y ago
        Exhibit A. Exactly what I’m taking about.
- palmfacehn 1y ago
  Whether proponents of government directed Science, agree or disagree, your comment presents a well reasoned argument. At the moment it is the most substantive comment on the page. Moreover, it is a direct, good faith response to the parent commenter's question. Yet for all of this, I see that the comment has been downvoted into grey. At the time of posting, no substantive rebuttals have been offered. This typifies the quality of discourse around defunding of "The Science" at HN.
  - exe34 1y ago
    it's a shit argument. Fundamental research funded by the government led to the Googles and OpenAIs of today. If industry funds research, the profits stay in the hands of the same people. When government funds research, new billionaires are minted down the line. if you like billionaires (I don't), you'd fund government research, not hope that the existing billionaires think it's in their interest. We wouldn't know about CFCs and the ozone if CFCs companies funded the research - we'd be burned to a crisp.
    - monero-xmr 1y ago
      You have a lack of imagination. The research lead to Google and OpenAI, but you can’t imagine such research could have happened without taxpayer funding. Furthermore there is no return to the taxpayer for the funding, other than esoteric “America benefits when the research happens in America”
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > you can’t imagine such research could have happened without taxpayer funding In a vacuum, maybe. But if China is subsidising basic research, it doesn’t make sense for private enterprise to do it here. That technology base shifts to where its cost of capital is lowest. This is practically how America ascended—putting massive public resources behind emerging science and technology before the fractured powers of Europe gathered the conviction to. It doesn’t even take imagination to see the fruits of this philosophy. There are countries whose governments don’t spend on R&D. Their citizens are poor and unfree, their governments less than sovereign on the international stage. > there is no return to the taxpayer for the funding The return comes from taxing the growth the R&D enables. Silicon Valley has more than returned the military funding that kickstarted it.
- yongjik 1y ago
  ...and when China leapfrogs ahead of America's science, these people will blame the nebulous American globalist elites for "letting it happen." So much for the invisible hand of the market.
- runsWphotons 1y ago
  I can understand disagreeing but it is funny that someone asked for a justification and then downvoted someone providing one, without even knowing if the person actually even endorses that line of thought. Liberalism truly is dead.
lancewiggs 1y ago
A lot of excellent climate research is done in the polar regions.
petesergeant 1y ago
> What possible justification could you have for this The base wants to see spending cuts in exchange for the tax cuts the rich are getting, and thinks science (especially climate science!) is a blunt tool by which liberals berate and control them.
- mlinhares 1y ago
  The base doesn't care about this, I doubt they even know this boat exists, this is being done for the sake of destroying science because they hate it.
  - petesergeant 1y ago
    The base cares about spending being alleged to have been cut
  - Yeul 1y ago
    The base are the rich who get the tax cuts. Looking at the US is looking at making Cyberpunk real. If you're not rich your vote doesn't matter you are just a useful idiot.

There is no market test for “fundamental” research. So when an avenue of research secures taxpayer funding it exists into perpetuity, and as papers are published and requests for additional funding are made, it tends to grow like a tumor over the decades, getting more PhDs to be matriculated in the labs that began the avenue and grow ever more forever. Very rarely is an avenue of research closed off once the trifecta of university research labs + journals, PhDs who are minted to continue the research, and grants secured and grown. A lot of the hand wringing by academics themselves are unfocused but circling the root cause, which is this. I would prefer corporations fund research but directed through the university system. The patents and gains are then funneled through the corporations that funded it, rather than the academics and universities with zero return to the taxpayers other than abstract “society gains” pablum, when the academics and universities truly gain all the profit. When corporations that actually have a market test and profit motive are funding the research, avenues that are unlikely to succeed will be cut off sooner, and alternatives to the current vogue will be funded quicker. You can see a real-life example (of failure) in Alzheimer’s research which was hamstrung by decades of political control of research labs and taxpayer grants that refused to fund alternatives to the “mainstream” theories which set back society and the disease. You asked for the justification and I provided it

intermerda 1y ago
Under your system what is the corporate incentive to study health effects of smoking?
- monero-xmr 1y ago
  A pharmaceutical company interested in curing millions of people dying of smoking would fund it
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
hodgesrm 1y ago
> When corporations that actually have a market test and profit motive are funding the research, avenues that are unlikely to succeed will be cut off sooner... It's hard to see how your suggestion would work for fundamental advances in technology. For example, backpropagation took decades to move from an idea to industrial use. [0] It was also "invented" multiple times. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backpropagation#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backpropagation#History
- oefrha 1y ago
  Explaining the value of fundamental research and long term societal investment to some crypto bro is an utter waste of time. Polar opposite mindset.
  - monero-xmr 1y ago
    I understood the value of crypto well before the vast majority of people and made a significant amount of money. While that isn’t an argument in favor of my opinions on other subjects, the pejorative of “crypto bro” is certainly inaccurate considering I noticed a massive profit opportunity well before most others, and instead should signal that I have heterodox opinions that might be accurate before the small-c conservatives (i.e. academics writ large) accept the truths
    - oefrha 1y ago
      Exhibit A. Exactly what I’m taking about.
palmfacehn 1y ago
Whether proponents of government directed Science, agree or disagree, your comment presents a well reasoned argument. At the moment it is the most substantive comment on the page. Moreover, it is a direct, good faith response to the parent commenter's question. Yet for all of this, I see that the comment has been downvoted into grey. At the time of posting, no substantive rebuttals have been offered. This typifies the quality of discourse around defunding of "The Science" at HN.
- exe34 1y ago
  it's a shit argument. Fundamental research funded by the government led to the Googles and OpenAIs of today. If industry funds research, the profits stay in the hands of the same people. When government funds research, new billionaires are minted down the line. if you like billionaires (I don't), you'd fund government research, not hope that the existing billionaires think it's in their interest. We wouldn't know about CFCs and the ozone if CFCs companies funded the research - we'd be burned to a crisp.
  - monero-xmr 1y ago
    You have a lack of imagination. The research lead to Google and OpenAI, but you can’t imagine such research could have happened without taxpayer funding. Furthermore there is no return to the taxpayer for the funding, other than esoteric “America benefits when the research happens in America”
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > you can’t imagine such research could have happened without taxpayer funding In a vacuum, maybe. But if China is subsidising basic research, it doesn’t make sense for private enterprise to do it here. That technology base shifts to where its cost of capital is lowest. This is practically how America ascended—putting massive public resources behind emerging science and technology before the fractured powers of Europe gathered the conviction to. It doesn’t even take imagination to see the fruits of this philosophy. There are countries whose governments don’t spend on R&D. Their citizens are poor and unfree, their governments less than sovereign on the international stage. > there is no return to the taxpayer for the funding The return comes from taxing the growth the R&D enables. Silicon Valley has more than returned the military funding that kickstarted it.
yongjik 1y ago
...and when China leapfrogs ahead of America's science, these people will blame the nebulous American globalist elites for "letting it happen." So much for the invisible hand of the market.
runsWphotons 1y ago
I can understand disagreeing but it is funny that someone asked for a justification and then downvoted someone providing one, without even knowing if the person actually even endorses that line of thought. Liberalism truly is dead.

lancewiggs 1y ago

A lot of excellent climate research is done in the polar regions.

petesergeant 1y ago

> What possible justification could you have for this The base wants to see spending cuts in exchange for the tax cuts the rich are getting, and thinks science (especially climate science!) is a blunt tool by which liberals berate and control them.

mlinhares 1y ago
The base doesn't care about this, I doubt they even know this boat exists, this is being done for the sake of destroying science because they hate it.
- petesergeant 1y ago
  The base cares about spending being alleged to have been cut
- Yeul 1y ago
  The base are the rich who get the tax cuts. Looking at the US is looking at making Cyberpunk real. If you're not rich your vote doesn't matter you are just a useful idiot.