3 ms·
If there's a validated metric on the 'benefit' side, sure. What I'm skeptical of is making up some unrigorous numbers to do quantitative cost-benefit analysis w
by _delirium 13y ago
If there's a validated metric on the 'benefit' side, sure. What I'm skeptical of is making up some unrigorous numbers to do quantitative cost-benefit analysis when a system isn't well understood enough to be quantified with any degree of confidence in the numbers, at least at present. Assuming anything we can't measure well yet is ~0 is also not a very rigorous approach.
One cautious approach could be to try to come up with lower and upper bounds on benefits, e.g. that with high confidence, we can conclude that academic physics research, or academic geography research, or whatever, has had at least $N but not more than $M impact on the U.S. economy, taking into account direct and indirect effects over a period of, say, 30 years. I suspect the space between those bounds would be large, but we would at least be able to say for sure (for certain values of "sure") that quantifiable benefit lies within a certain range. I'd be interested in that research, if there is any, but these kinds of estimates are notoriously difficult to establish, given that history isn't an experimental science.
- yummyfajitas 13y agoAssuming anything we can't measure well yet is ~0 is also not a very rigorous approach. At the end of the day, you need a number - the amount of dollars to fund physics with. This number will have uncertainty attached to it, just like every other number. I agree that such numbers are difficult to establish, they are likely to be strongly dependent on priors, and credible intervals will be large. So what? It's still a better approach than simply throwing arbitrary politically determined amounts of money at endeavors that sound cool to a rationally innumerate and ignorant electorate.