4 ms·

Totally support you! I have done research and analysis long enough to understand that we all need to remain humble and refrain from assuming a conclusion witho

Totally support you! I have done research and analysis long enough to understand that we all need to remain humble and refrain from assuming a conclusion without substantial evidence. When I read the sentence “All of which have had deep funding cuts.” I speculate that this response is a simple signal amplification without any added evidence and without critique. I think it’s an attempt at self and collective affirmation. Who is to say that funding cuts in academia won’t have short and long-term benefits for society and also result in a net increase in happiness and productivity? We simply don’t know yet. Supply and demand of valuable thought and research may redistribute within the economy! I think there are very political people out there, the world may benefit from forums which cater to people who are political and separately to those who aren’t very political!

freejazz 1y ago
Obtuse and naive.
ivell 1y ago
>> Who is to say that funding cuts in academia won’t have short and long-term benefits for society and also result in a net increase in happiness and productivity Don't we already have evidence of this? Many developing nations do not have adequate funding for academia and it is not increasing their happiness and productivity. Neither we can see any benefits on the society.
teiferer 1y ago
> Who is to say that funding cuts in academia won’t have short and long-term benefits for society and also result in a net increase in happiness and productivity Who is to say that if I stop eating I won't see long-term benefits and also result in a net increase in happiness and productivity?
- vntok 1y ago
  > Who is to say that if I stop eating beef I won't see long-term benefits and also result in a net increase in happiness and productivity? See how considering the tiniest amount of nuance instead of oversimplifying everything tends to allow more interesting thought patterns?
  - teiferer 1y ago
    Does it? The point was that stopping calorie intake leads to death. That's not a controversial statement. Stopping funding is similar, it ends the thing it used to fund. Expansion of human knowledge, in this case. Unclear what that would have to do with beef. Are you saying that beef is bad for health, so stopping only that from entering your mouth is good for your health, and similarly, academic research is bad, so ending that could be good for society? Which type of research is better for society, assuming you'd like to keep some way for society to expand its knowledge of the world?
    - vntok 1y ago
      In your own allegory, stopping calorie intake would be akin to defunding " Science ". Obviously that brings death to the body and brain drain to the country, no one disputes this I think. But that's not what is happening here, so I'm not sure why you would choose to use this allegory. Indeed, cutting 100% of gov funding to Harvard Medical School results in defunding them by 20% or so. In your own allegory, that would be akin to reducing calorie intake of a particular type of meat (say, beef) but only by 20% . So: is it bad over the long term? Meh, who knows? It's not trivial to answer, right?
      - freejazz 1y ago
        Do you have any reason to actually support this kind of otherwise completely specious argument? Yeah, sure, limiting some things that are not good can make a good result. Where's the leap from that to the medical research that's being stopped?
      - teiferer 1y ago
        > So: is it bad over the long term? Meh, who knows? It's not trivial to answer, right? There are two statements here: 1. Your "who knows if medical research funding being severely reduced will lead to a worse outcome in terms of research results; not trivial right?" 2. My "reducing funding of medical research will have a negative impact on research results." It's not hard to argue that the first one is the claim that has the burden of proof.

freejazz 1y ago

Obtuse and naive.

ivell 1y ago

>> Who is to say that funding cuts in academia won’t have short and long-term benefits for society and also result in a net increase in happiness and productivity Don't we already have evidence of this? Many developing nations do not have adequate funding for academia and it is not increasing their happiness and productivity. Neither we can see any benefits on the society.

teiferer 1y ago

> Who is to say that funding cuts in academia won’t have short and long-term benefits for society and also result in a net increase in happiness and productivity Who is to say that if I stop eating I won't see long-term benefits and also result in a net increase in happiness and productivity?

vntok 1y ago
> Who is to say that if I stop eating beef I won't see long-term benefits and also result in a net increase in happiness and productivity? See how considering the tiniest amount of nuance instead of oversimplifying everything tends to allow more interesting thought patterns?
- teiferer 1y ago
  Does it? The point was that stopping calorie intake leads to death. That's not a controversial statement. Stopping funding is similar, it ends the thing it used to fund. Expansion of human knowledge, in this case. Unclear what that would have to do with beef. Are you saying that beef is bad for health, so stopping only that from entering your mouth is good for your health, and similarly, academic research is bad, so ending that could be good for society? Which type of research is better for society, assuming you'd like to keep some way for society to expand its knowledge of the world?
  - vntok 1y ago
    In your own allegory, stopping calorie intake would be akin to defunding " Science ". Obviously that brings death to the body and brain drain to the country, no one disputes this I think. But that's not what is happening here, so I'm not sure why you would choose to use this allegory. Indeed, cutting 100% of gov funding to Harvard Medical School results in defunding them by 20% or so. In your own allegory, that would be akin to reducing calorie intake of a particular type of meat (say, beef) but only by 20% . So: is it bad over the long term? Meh, who knows? It's not trivial to answer, right?
    - freejazz 1y ago
      Do you have any reason to actually support this kind of otherwise completely specious argument? Yeah, sure, limiting some things that are not good can make a good result. Where's the leap from that to the medical research that's being stopped?
    - teiferer 1y ago
      > So: is it bad over the long term? Meh, who knows? It's not trivial to answer, right? There are two statements here: 1. Your "who knows if medical research funding being severely reduced will lead to a worse outcome in terms of research results; not trivial right?" 2. My "reducing funding of medical research will have a negative impact on research results." It's not hard to argue that the first one is the claim that has the burden of proof.