5 ms·
Sure, there is hypothetically such a point. But if you've looked at the basic research job market, you'd realize we're a long, long way below that point.
by xamuel 12y ago
Sure, there is hypothetically such a point. But if you've looked at the basic research job market, you'd realize we're a long, long way below that point.
- seanmcdirmid 12y agoSure. 1% might be too low, but hopefully private industry picks up the slack at some point. The government only needs to prime the pump.
- xamuel 12y agoA lot of basic research is unprofitable. Private industry has little incentive to pick up that slack. Individual philanthropists might throw basic research a bone here and there, but the most fundamental basic research is completely orthogonal to profit motives. We know about the basic research which led to enormous profits, but that's because of survivor bias. Almost all basic research leads nowhere or takes centuries to mature, and in the rare exceptional cases, it isn't like you can enforce a patent on laws of physics. What we'll get from industry funding is an even bigger circus of 'applied' science (highly credentialed people drawing lines through points and obfuscating everything they say and selling it all as science)
- seanmcdirmid 12y agoI'm a bit more optimistic about industry, but you probably have a good point. Academia can be a big circle jerk also, with the applied science being replaced by theoretical science in the big circus. Almost everyone is fake in this game, except for the few who aren't.