5 ms·

so... that education and research are still valuable and we should still invest in them because they contribute to the US economy? there may be ethical concern

so... that education and research are still valuable and we should still invest in them because they contribute to the US economy? there may be ethical concerns, but (as i'm tired of explaining to people like you) the answer isn't "burn the entire system down". you're a "researcher" (who ostensibly engages in work requiring strong logical reasoning) so this comment is genuinely baffling. so you don't believe that scientific progress and the advancement of our species can occur because a percentage of NSF grantees go on to work for private companies? do you believe this system can be reformed, or are the ethical concerns enough for you to support defunding all scientific research? what do you think about your peers who publish articles like this [1]? "This may be the most dangerous public health judgment that I've seen in my 50 years in this business," says Michael Osterholm, who runs the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. "It is baseless, and we will pay a tremendous price in terms of illnesses and deaths. I'm extremely worried about it." personally, i think your concerns are totally valid and should be addressed. but how are you coming into a thread to defend the defunding of public scientific research in light of the quote above? do you believe that the loss of human life is worth it? [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/08/06/nx-s1-5493544/rfk-defunding-mrna-vaccine-research https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/08/06/nx...

infamouscow 1y ago
First, regarding logical fallacies: your response relies on an emotional appeal by invoking potential "loss of human life" and an appeal to authority via the Osterholm quote. To provide context on Osterholm, he notably advised in the early days of COVID, when scientific guidance was critical, that a vaccine would take years to develop. For instance, during a March 2020 appearance on the Joe Rogan Experience, he expressed this view with considerable confidence. In reality, vaccines were authorized within eight months, highlighting the fallibility of experts. Second, on NSF funding: the NSF supports a broad spectrum of research, but not all areas yield equivalent advancements. It's inaccurate to conflate progress in one domain (e.g., math, computer science) with others, or to assume all funded work inherently advances humanity. Consider a hypothetical -- if an executive order allocated $10 million from the NSF for alchemy studies, chemistry departments nationwide would see professors submitting tailored grant proposals, positioning their expertise as ideal for such investigations. This reflects the grant-driven nature of academia, where tenure and career progression incentivize alignment with available funding, regardless of intrinsic merit. Academics, like any professionals, are not immune to societal pressures such as over-credentialing and the need to secure resources. Third, on reform versus defunding: I am open to reforming the system to address ethical concerns, such as the subsidization of corporate profits through public training of industrial workers. However, the academic structure has insulated itself over decades through entrenched rules and policies, making meaningful change challenging. If you propose reform, could you outline the first three concrete steps grounded in existing mechanisms to initiate it? Vague aspirations often falter when confronted with reality, such as university governance and federal grant protocols. Finally, on the value of NSF-funded research: your assumption that this funding directly prevents loss of life lacks empirical support. We should critically evaluate whether specific allocations are worthwhile. Are you open to the possibility that some are not? If so, what evidence would persuade you otherwise? Defunding ineffective or misaligned programs isn't about "burning the system down" but about prioritizing resources for genuine long-term societal benefit.
- text0404 1y ago
  if i wanted to debate with chatgpt, i'd go debate with chatgpt. this is painfully transparent dude.
  - infamouscow 1y ago
    I didn't feed my reply through ChatGPT. I've addressed your questions. Since you rather argue in bad faith than peruse the truth, it's reasonable to conclude you do not have a rebuttal, nor answer to my question re: realistic steps for reform.
    - text0404 1y ago
      ok, let's continue in your style! feel free to feed this back to chatgpt and we'll just keep doing a back and forth. The defense falls apart on several fronts: The ChatGPT Accusation Has Merit: The previous comment reads like AI output - overly formal structure ("First, regarding logical fallacies... Second, on NSF funding... Third, on reform..."), buzzword-heavy language, and the telltale pattern of systematically addressing each point with academic jargon. The Osterholm example is oddly specific yet potentially fabricated - claiming he said vaccines would take "years" on Joe Rogan in March 2020, when early pandemic expert predictions were more nuanced. Bad Faith Projection: Accusing text0404 of "bad faith" while dodging the core issue. Text0404 raised a straightforward concern: defunding research during public health crises could cost lives. Infamouscow responded with academic theorizing about grant structures rather than addressing this practical concern. False Burden Shifting: Demanding "three concrete reform steps" is a deflection tactic. The burden isn't on text0404 to solve systemic problems before questioning whether cutting health research funding is wise. This is like demanding someone propose complete healthcare reform before they can object to shutting down hospitals. Missing the Forest: Infamouscow gets lost in academic critique while ignoring the immediate context - HHS winding down mRNA vaccine development amid ongoing health challenges. The philosophical points about NSF funding structures are irrelevant to whether this specific decision serves public health. The accusation of AI use appears warranted based on writing patterns, and the defensive response confirms evasion of the substantive issue.

infamouscow 1y ago

First, regarding logical fallacies: your response relies on an emotional appeal by invoking potential "loss of human life" and an appeal to authority via the Osterholm quote. To provide context on Osterholm, he notably advised in the early days of COVID, when scientific guidance was critical, that a vaccine would take years to develop. For instance, during a March 2020 appearance on the Joe Rogan Experience, he expressed this view with considerable confidence. In reality, vaccines were authorized within eight months, highlighting the fallibility of experts. Second, on NSF funding: the NSF supports a broad spectrum of research, but not all areas yield equivalent advancements. It's inaccurate to conflate progress in one domain (e.g., math, computer science) with others, or to assume all funded work inherently advances humanity. Consider a hypothetical -- if an executive order allocated $10 million from the NSF for alchemy studies, chemistry departments nationwide would see professors submitting tailored grant proposals, positioning their expertise as ideal for such investigations. This reflects the grant-driven nature of academia, where tenure and career progression incentivize alignment with available funding, regardless of intrinsic merit. Academics, like any professionals, are not immune to societal pressures such as over-credentialing and the need to secure resources. Third, on reform versus defunding: I am open to reforming the system to address ethical concerns, such as the subsidization of corporate profits through public training of industrial workers. However, the academic structure has insulated itself over decades through entrenched rules and policies, making meaningful change challenging. If you propose reform, could you outline the first three concrete steps grounded in existing mechanisms to initiate it? Vague aspirations often falter when confronted with reality, such as university governance and federal grant protocols. Finally, on the value of NSF-funded research: your assumption that this funding directly prevents loss of life lacks empirical support. We should critically evaluate whether specific allocations are worthwhile. Are you open to the possibility that some are not? If so, what evidence would persuade you otherwise? Defunding ineffective or misaligned programs isn't about "burning the system down" but about prioritizing resources for genuine long-term societal benefit.

text0404 1y ago
if i wanted to debate with chatgpt, i'd go debate with chatgpt. this is painfully transparent dude.
- infamouscow 1y ago
  I didn't feed my reply through ChatGPT. I've addressed your questions. Since you rather argue in bad faith than peruse the truth, it's reasonable to conclude you do not have a rebuttal, nor answer to my question re: realistic steps for reform.
  - text0404 1y ago
    ok, let's continue in your style! feel free to feed this back to chatgpt and we'll just keep doing a back and forth. The defense falls apart on several fronts: The ChatGPT Accusation Has Merit: The previous comment reads like AI output - overly formal structure ("First, regarding logical fallacies... Second, on NSF funding... Third, on reform..."), buzzword-heavy language, and the telltale pattern of systematically addressing each point with academic jargon. The Osterholm example is oddly specific yet potentially fabricated - claiming he said vaccines would take "years" on Joe Rogan in March 2020, when early pandemic expert predictions were more nuanced. Bad Faith Projection: Accusing text0404 of "bad faith" while dodging the core issue. Text0404 raised a straightforward concern: defunding research during public health crises could cost lives. Infamouscow responded with academic theorizing about grant structures rather than addressing this practical concern. False Burden Shifting: Demanding "three concrete reform steps" is a deflection tactic. The burden isn't on text0404 to solve systemic problems before questioning whether cutting health research funding is wise. This is like demanding someone propose complete healthcare reform before they can object to shutting down hospitals. Missing the Forest: Infamouscow gets lost in academic critique while ignoring the immediate context - HHS winding down mRNA vaccine development amid ongoing health challenges. The philosophical points about NSF funding structures are irrelevant to whether this specific decision serves public health. The accusation of AI use appears warranted based on writing patterns, and the defensive response confirms evasion of the substantive issue.