Stop spending money on pure science

Originally posted by humy
how is it a "distraction"?

Because it is focussing on something that is largely irrelevant to the real problem.

Would you say that the argument that the World Bank should not have provided a large loan to the department of National Parks because that money would have been better spent on reducing poverty (an argument I would agree with; of course it would be better spent on reducing poverty! ) is “nothing but a distraction from the real causes of poverty” ?
No, because the world bank loan is a cause of poverty (someone's got to pay it back). In Zambia when I first started work, I paid about 25% income tax (on a salary that would be below minimum wage in most developed countries.). This tax was mostly used to pay off the interest on loans obtained in the past. Some for good reasons (building Kariba hydroelectric dam) and some for bad reasons.

I am making a very similar argument when I say money spent on truly pure science would be better spent on reducing poverty and I don't see any fundamental difference to the structure/logic of my argument to yours about the National Parks.
Both cases point to a decision making problem at the governmental level. So you should focus on that and say 'all unnecessary government spending should be stopped and focus should be put on ending world poverty'. The way you are focusing on pure science suggests there is a problem with pure science research itself and that it is particularly wasteful.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Because it is focussing on something that is largely irrelevant to the real problem.

Would you say that the argument that the World Bank should not have provided a large loan to the department of National Parks because that money would have been better spent on reducing poverty (an argument I would agree with; of course it would be better spent ...[text shortened]... n r s there is a problem with pure science research itself and that it is particularly wasteful.

No, because the world bank loan is a cause of poverty (someone's got to pay it back). In Zambia when I first started work, I paid about 25% income tax (on a salary that would be below minimum wage in most developed countries.). This tax was mostly used to pay off the interest on loans obtained in the past. Some for good reasons (building Kariba hydroelectric dam) and some for bad reasons.

so world bank loan is a cause of poverty because the poor pay taxes for it and that directly makes them even poorer.

But whether something directly or indirectly makes the poor even poorer is surely irrelevant -right?
If X rather than Y has the best chance of reducing poverty but a certain amount of money M is spent on both X and Y rather than being concentrated all on spending on just X when such concentration of spending on only X would gave X an even greater chance of reducing poverty then that indirectly makes the poor even poorer because the money is being spent in a way that does not take the maximum opportunity to do everything possible to minimise both the chances and magnitude of future poverty -right?
For this reason, which sciences are funded isn't a “distraction” of poverty because you could make the argument that it is indirectly one of the causes! -albeit not the main cause.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Painful but enlightening, this thread.

PAINFUL but enlightening, this thread.
I wish I hadn't started it but, to late.

The proposal that I made the subject of this thread is a specialized application of a far more general principles which are these:

The amount of resources we have available to us ( such as money, time, labour, land, buildings, machinery, materials, energy etc ) is never infinite but always finite.
Therefore, the maximum possible amount of resources we have available at any one moment of time to do good is never infinite but always finite.
Lets call the maximum possible amount of resources we have available to do good at any moment of time “M”. We cannot increase M for any moment of time because it is the maximum possible amount for that moment by definition of M.

Now:

Principle 1;
We should use/spend M to do the maximum amount of good.

But because M is finite and fixed for any one moment of time because it cannot be increased for any one moment of time, the more of M we use/spend M to try and do good by using/spending M on something X, the less of M we will have left over to use/spend M to try and do good by using/spending M on something different Y. So the more we spend on one thing X, the less we have to spend on another thing Y and visa versa.

In other words, the more resources we spend on one thing, the less we have to spend on other things.

Now:

Principle 2;
If we have two things X and Y we can spend some of M on each and, if according to our best judgement, each probably has about equal chances of resulting in good if we spent s amount of M on each and this is so regardless of how much s amount is of M, But, if, according to our best judgement, the magnitude of the good X could do is probably greater than the magnitude of the good Y could do, then, assuming there is an approximately linear relationship between the amount of expenditure on each and the chances of each doing good, we should concentrate any expenditure of M only on X and none of Y because we should assume any expenditure of M on Y could be better spent as additional expenditure on X.

Principle 3;
If we have two things X and Y we can spend some of M on and if both could result in doing good if we spent on both and, if according to our best judgement, if they did both were to do good, X will probably do good of about equal magnitude to Y, but, if, according to our best judgement, the chances of X doing good if we spent s amount of M on it is less than the chances of Y doing good if we spent that same s amount of M on it and this is so regardless of how much s amount is of M, then, assuming there is an approximately linear relationship between the amount of expenditure on each and the chances of each doing good, we should concentrate any expenditure of M only on X and none of Y because we should assume any expenditure of M on Y could be better spent as additional expenditure on X.

Basically the function of the above principles are to do the greatest amount of good using the finite limited resources that we have available by optimising how we use those finite resources specifically to do the greatest amount of good.



There, sorted.


Anyone disagree with the above principles?

Originally posted by humy
The proposal that I made the subject of this thread is a specialized application of a far more general principles which are these:

The amount of resources we have available to us ( such as money, time, labour, land, buildings, machinery, materials, energy etc ) is never infinite but always finite.
Therefore, the maximum possible amount of resources we have ...[text shortened]... greatest amount of good.



There, sorted.


Anyone disagree with the above principles?

Clarification:

for both principle 2 and principle 3, the words “assuming there is an approximately linear relationship between the amount of expenditure on each and the chances of each doing good” mean exactly the same thing as “ assuming that for each X and Y, there is an approximately linear relationship between the amount of expenditure on it and the chances of it doing good”
And, where we do NOT assume such a linear relationship, then we just have to take into account the more complex mathematical relationship assumed and adapt the two principles according to that more complex mathematical relationship between the amount of resources spent on X and the chances of it doing good.

For example, if tripling the funding to an area of research increases the chances of giving a useful result from 10% to 10.001% which is a non-linear increase ( as opposed to ~30% which is ) then probably not worth tripling the funding.

Originally posted by humy
Anyone disagree with the above principles?

Yes. They're simplistic, and they ignore the fact that certain countries *coughUSA*coughChina*cough* are still actively working against the solution of poverty.

And you're still assuming that applied sciences spring into being out of nowhere, as if they don't need a basis to work from. Well, they do need that basis, and that basis is the very thing you want to destroy. Having fun sawing the legs out from under your own chair?

Richard

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I say that your whole argument is nothing but a distraction from the real causes of poverty. If you really want to make progress in the fight against poverty then forget about the science budget and concentrate on:
1. Education.
2. Corruption.
3. Political will

Exactly, exactly and exactly.

Richard

Originally posted by humy
Why would we have no computers? When computers were first being developed, there WAS reason to believe they could work -the theory would have said so.

The computer you are working on was made possible because someone in a state-funded laboratory did investigations into the pure-science electrical behaviour of impure silicon and germanium. Take away that pure, merely-interested, research into semi-conductors, and the whole edifice on top of it comes crumbling down.

Richard

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Yes. They're simplistic, and they ignore the fact that certain countries *coughUSA*coughChina*cough* are still actively working against the solution of poverty.

And you're still assuming that applied sciences spring into being out of nowhere, as if they don't need a basis to work from. Well, they do need that basis, and that basis is the very ...[text shortened]... ing you want to destroy. Having fun sawing the legs out from under your own chair?

Richard

Yes. They're simplistic, and they ignore the fact that certain countries *coughUSA*coughChina*cough* are still actively working against the solution of poverty.

how are they “simplistic” and what the hell has countries implicitly going against these principles by “actively working against the solution of poverty “ got to do with the validity of these principles?

Would you say that the principles of human rights are wrong/too simplistic because some people such as Nazis work against them?

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
The computer you are working on was made possible because someone in a state-funded laboratory did investigations into the pure-science electrical behaviour of impure silicon and germanium. Take away that pure, merely-interested, research into semi-conductors, and the whole edifice on top of it comes crumbling down.

Richard

pure-science electrical behaviour of

no, I have never said/implied in any way that I am against funding of this type of semi-pure science which as obvious practical applications -read my previous posts.

I have always absolutely consistently maintained and always will consistently maintain that we should be spending more on both semi-pure and applied science ( excluding military research ) and never cut it.
I challenge you to show where I said otherwise!

Originally posted by humy
some people such as Nazis

You lose.

Go away.

ichard

The people who make the decisions about science funding and what it is used for are in this instance largely governments (and the various organisations/politicians/etc involved).
To achieve your goal of changing science funding, you must first convince these decision makers that dealing with world poverty is a worthy goal.
If you manage to convince them of this then they would quite easily find the necessary funding somewhere else that is even less worth funding than pure science.
In other words, if you convince them, your problem will be solved without your suggestion, if you don't convince them your suggestion will get nowhere.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The people who make the decisions about science funding and what it is used for are in this instance largely governments (and the various organisations/politicians/etc involved).
To achieve your goal of changing science funding, you must first convince these decision makers that dealing with world poverty is a worthy goal.
If you manage to convince them ...[text shortened]... be solved without your suggestion, if you don't convince them your suggestion will get nowhere.

Yes, I believe you are entirely correct there. Point taken.

Originally posted by humy

pure-science electrical behaviour of

no, I have never said/implied in any way that I am against funding of this type of semi-pure science which as obvious practical applications -read my previous posts.

I have always absolutely consistently maintained and always will consistently maintain that we should be spending more on both semi-pure a ...[text shortened]... excluding military research ) and never cut it.
I challenge you to show where I said otherwise!

This is one of the problems with your argument. Whatever historic example of pure science is given, you see the modern-day offspring of it and then retroactively argue that it wasn't pure science at the time.

Originally posted by Barts
This is one of the problems with your argument. Whatever historic example of pure science is given, you see the modern-day offspring of it and then retroactively argue that it wasn't pure science at the time.

That's because most of it wasn't truly pure science at the time but what I would call “semi-pure science” because, even at the time, there was good reason to believe it would probably eventually lead to useful applications and that is even without the benefit of hindsight of what we know now. What are the probable benefits of such research isn't totally unpredictable.

And even in the rare cases where there was absolutely no good reason at the time to believe it could lead to useful applications, even without the benefit of hindsight, I wouldn't have been against it being researched but rather I would be merely against significant government funding going into it ( say, much more than one million ) providing that same money is then spent on better things such as feeding the starving etc.