Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   To fund or not to fund - Are some science projects worth pursuing?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 61 of 74 (594502)
12-03-2010 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Bolder-dash
12-03-2010 12:35 AM


Re: per your advice
As cavediver has pointed out, there are very very few people on the planet who can even come close to understanding what is going on in the search for extra universes and strings created only by the evidence of imagination ... How much should we spend on such short odds? We have to spend billions based on the fantasies of 5 people?
There aren't a great number of people who really understand how electricity works. I myself don't understand quantum electrodynamics.
The utility of a discovery is not measured by the number of people who know how it works, but by the number of people who can make use of it.
If the folks at CERN could one day parlay their discoveries into (for example) a cheap and effective form of anti-gravity, then we'd all profit even if there were only five people in the world who really understand how it works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-03-2010 12:35 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 62 of 74 (594503)
12-03-2010 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Dr Adequate
12-03-2010 3:46 PM


It is possible that it is Bs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-03-2010 3:46 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 63 of 74 (594640)
12-04-2010 7:50 AM


EDIT:
CRAP I MISSED THE TOPIC IT WAS SUPOSSED TO GO TO THE ARC TPOIC; CAN A MOD MOWE THIS??
Adminnemooseus reply - Do it at the proper topic yourself. And maybe consider working on your spelling and/or typos.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide misplaced message.

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 64 of 74 (594746)
12-05-2010 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Taq
12-03-2010 12:54 PM


Regardless of things elsewhere, science shouldn't be a sacred cow
Taq, in response to Bolder-dash, writes:
The money spent on these science projects is dwarfed by the total amount of money that is out there. IIRC, the LHC cost around 7 or 8 billion to construct over several years. The US military budget is 700 to 800 billion per year, and it doesn't solve any of the problems you listed. I don't think the LHC (or other similar big projects) is the area you should be picking on.
There are certainly other areas of government expenditures that should be questioned, the military (IMO) the greatest of the bunch*. I'm not anti-science, but I don't see that "we waste lots of money elsewhere" as reason to make science a sacred cow. Indeed, much military research and development can be filed under "science".
How much did we blow on "Star Wars"? Sure, there probably was valuable knowledge to come out of "Star Wars", but was it an efficient way to go about the research?
Send man to Mars? The cost/benefit analysis relative to unmanned would seem to be pretty dismal. I think we need to invest in maintaining our own planet much more (like non-fossil fuel energy sources).
The LHC? I can get behind that, but I really don't think we need more than one of them.
Moose
Edited by Minnemooseus, : Forgot to change subtitle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Taq, posted 12-03-2010 12:54 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by cavediver, posted 12-05-2010 4:18 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied
 Message 70 by Taq, posted 12-06-2010 1:26 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 65 of 74 (594749)
12-05-2010 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Minnemooseus
12-05-2010 1:36 AM


Re: Regardless of things elsewhere, science shouldn't be a sacred cow
The LHC? I can get behind that, but I really don't think we need more than one of them.
I'm assuming that this is something you realised fifty years ago, as they were building SLAC?
Moose in 1960 writes:
Yes, I am fully behind this "futuristic" accelerator and I predict that it will make fabulous discoveries in the field of esoteric particle physics. But so much more than that, the leading-edge science, technology, and expertise developed in its *construction* will be invaluable to us *all* in the years ahead, not just the ivory-tower particle physicists.
In fact, I predict that each successive future generation of accelerator will raise higher the bar of achievable technology, break through new limits on construction, as super-sceince continues to inspire and amaze with its ability to make the impossible possible...
Oh, except in 2010... I will have had enough by then, and I think we'll be able to call it a day. I mean, there's only so much progress we can stomach. Right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-05-2010 1:36 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by xongsmith, posted 12-06-2010 2:36 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Son
Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 66 of 74 (594806)
12-05-2010 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Bolder-dash
12-03-2010 12:27 PM


Re: per your advice
It's true that scientific research is bad. If there hadn't been all those reasearches that helped agriculture, there wouldn't be 60-100 million children starving because the human population would have been much smaller. Actually, we would have been better of with sticks and stones, right? By the way, why do you even use a computer? It's the result of all this evil research after all, better not encourage it by using such an evil object.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-03-2010 12:27 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by frako, posted 12-05-2010 11:17 AM Son has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 67 of 74 (594814)
12-05-2010 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Son
12-05-2010 10:58 AM


Re: per your advice
ctually, we would have been better of with sticks and stones, right?
Stics and stones for tool use are scientific inventions one of the first you may only use your hands legs and teeth or anything else attached to your body. Clothes are a scientific invention too so nakedness is the key winter shiminter, fire is also an invention.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Son, posted 12-05-2010 10:58 AM Son has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 68 of 74 (594947)
12-05-2010 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Dr Adequate
12-03-2010 3:46 PM


It may be legit.
A man about 43 years of age giving the name Joshua Coppersmith has been arrested for attempting to extort funds from ignorant and superstitious people by exhibiting a device which he says will convey the human voice any distance over metallic wires. He calls the instrument a ‘telephone,’ which is obviously intended to imitate the word ‘telegraph’ and win the confidence of those who know the success of the latter instrument. Well informed people know that it is impossible to transmit the human voice over wires, as may be done by dots and dashes and signals of the Morse Code. The authorities who apprehended this criminal are to be congratulated and it is hoped that punishment will be prompt and fitting, and that it may serve as an example to other conscienceless schemers who enrich themselves at the expense of their fellow creatures.
— Boston newspaper, 1865, quoted by Edison’s assistant Francis Jehl in Menlo Park Reminiscences, 1937
Technology Archives - Page 9 of 86 - Futility Closet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-03-2010 3:46 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Coragyps, posted 12-05-2010 9:47 PM molbiogirl has replied
 Message 73 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-06-2010 2:42 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 69 of 74 (594972)
12-05-2010 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by molbiogirl
12-05-2010 6:48 PM


Hi, Molbiogirl!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We missed you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by molbiogirl, posted 12-05-2010 6:48 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by molbiogirl, posted 12-06-2010 6:07 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 70 of 74 (595083)
12-06-2010 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Minnemooseus
12-05-2010 1:36 AM


Re: Regardless of things elsewhere, science shouldn't be a sacred cow
There are certainly other areas of government expenditures that should be questioned, the military (IMO) the greatest of the bunch*. I'm not anti-science, but I don't see that "we waste lots of money elsewhere" as reason to make science a sacred cow. Indeed, much military research and development can be filed under "science".
Any scientific research program should go through a review where the scientists must justify the project. I think we both agree on that. What I was arguing against is that science should be the prime target for cuts until world hunger is cured.
I also mentioned the Arts. We have government funded endowments that fund the arts. What do we get out of it, in practical terms? Nothing. Is it still important? Absolutely. I view big science projects like the LHC and manned space flight in the same way. These are first and foremost human endeavors that push the limit of what we are capable of with science taking 2nd place in the whole scheme of things.
The LHC? I can get behind that, but I really don't think we need more than one of them.
I agree. One is enough. After 20 years or so of operation we should have a better idea of what we should expect from an accelerator (probably space based) operating at 4-10 times the power of the LHC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-05-2010 1:36 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 71 of 74 (595087)
12-06-2010 1:53 PM


Defund science?
Without science we would be a third-world country.
Historical example: Arab countries were the seat of science during the European Dark Ages. Then, for about the same reasons as precipitated the Dark Ages, they turned their backs on science.
I wouldn't want to see that sort of nonsense happen here because of some lame excuses about feeding the poor and solving all of our other problems first.
The innovations coming out of science are the solutions to many of our problems. Examples: just start with agriculture and medicine for two. Microelectronics is another, and that field has revolutionized the world in about 50 years.

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 72 of 74 (595094)
12-06-2010 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by cavediver
12-05-2010 4:18 AM


Re: Regardless of things elsewhere, science shouldn't be a sacred cow
Moose in 1960 writes:
...
EvC was active in 1960??? Coolest!!!

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by cavediver, posted 12-05-2010 4:18 AM cavediver has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 73 of 74 (595097)
12-06-2010 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by molbiogirl
12-05-2010 6:48 PM


Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by molbiogirl, posted 12-05-2010 6:48 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 74 of 74 (595132)
12-06-2010 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Coragyps
12-05-2010 9:47 PM


Thanks, Coragyps! It's been a while.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Coragyps, posted 12-05-2010 9:47 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024