PDA

View Full Version : Technology: Science and Research Funding




soulcyon
01-31-2012, 06:31 PM
The premise of science is to gain knowledge, so regardless of a failed or successful experiment there is a vast amount of knowledge gained. In the private sector, however, the profits can only arrive from successful sales and the transfer of money. Science basically asks for millions, but only results in knowledge gained.

In terms of the Ron Paul campaign, how will he fund science or what are his opinions regarding scientific research? Just by definition, the private sector cannot truly fund science - it can fund successful research and engineering, but there are slim chances those profits go towards gaining more knowledge.

soulcyon
02-01-2012, 12:42 AM
bump

kuckfeynes
02-01-2012, 01:03 AM
Is knowledge that has no economic value really useful?
What do you think would disappear if it were not funded forcibly through taxation?
The market is always a better director of funds than the government, and science is no exception.

Sola_Fide
02-01-2012, 01:09 AM
The premise of science is to gain knowledge, so regardless of a failed or successful experiment there is a vast amount of knowledge gained. In the private sector, however, the profits can only arrive from successful sales and the transfer of money. Science basically asks for millions, but only results in knowledge gained.

I disagree. The purpose of science is to take dominion of the earth that God has created for us. It is not a means to obtain true knowledge. There is no such thing as scientific truth. It is logically impossible that a true statement can come from a scientific experiment. Why? Several reasons:




(1) Observation is unreliable. Scientists do not perform an experiment only once. Experiments are always repeated, and the results most always differ in some way. Why? Because the senses tend to deceive us; they are not to be trusted. Hence, numerous readings are taken in an attempt to guard against inaccurate observation. So much is this the case in science, that tests with unrepeatable results are never taken seriously. But if observation is unreliable, if the senses are so easily deceived, if the results frequently differ, why should one ever believe that he has discovered truth through observation?


(2) All scientific experiments commit the fallacy of asserting the consequent. In syllogistic form this is expressed as: “If p, then q. q; therefore, p.” Bertrand Russell, certainly no friend of Christianity, stated it this way:



All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: “If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true.” This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: “If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing.” If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based.

In the laboratory scientists work with a hypothesis. In this case the hypothesis is: “If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me.” The scientist then attempts to deduce the predicted results that should occur if the hypothesis is true, such as “this bread nourishes me.” He then performs an experiment to test the hypothesis to see if the predicted results occur. So he sits down at the table and eats the bread, and wonder of wonders, the bread does nourish him. The hypothesis, he concludes, is confirmed: “This bread is a stone and stones are nourishing.” Silly you say? Yes! Yet, as Russell has asserted, it is not “fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based.” That is to say, all scientific laws are based on fallacious arguments.


(3)Science commits the fallacy of induction. Induction is the attempt to derive a general law from particular instances. Science is necessarily inductive. For example, if a scientist is studying crows, he might observe 999 crows and find that they all are black. But is he ever able to assert that all crows are black? No; the next crow he observes might be an albino. One can never observe all crows: past, present, and future. Universal propositions can never be validly obtained by observation. Hence, science can never give us true statements.


(4)Equations are always selected, they are never discovered. In the laboratory the scientist seeks to determine the boiling point of water. Since water hardly ever boils at the same temperature, the scientist conducts a number of tests and the slightly differing results are noted. He then must average them. But what kind of average does he use: mean, mode, or median? He must choose; and whatever kind of average he selects, it is his own choice; it is not dictated by the data. Then too, the average he chooses is just that, that is, it is an average, not the actual datum yielded by the experiment. Once the test results have been averaged, the scientist will calculate the variable error in his readings. He will likely plot the data points or areas on a graph. Then he will draw a curve through the resultant data points or areas on the graph. But how many curves, each one of which describes a different equation, are possible? An infinite number of curves is possible. But the scientist draws only one. What is the probability of the scientist choosing the correct curve out of an infinite number of possibilities? The chance is one over infinity, or zero. Therefore, all scientific laws are false. They cannot possibly be true. As cited above, the statement of Karl Popper is correct: “It can even be shown that all theories, including the best, have the same probability, namely zero.”


(5)All scientific laws describe ideal situations. As Clark has said, “At best, scientific law is a construction rather than a discovery, and the construction depends on factors never seen under a microscope, never weighed in a balance, never handled or manipulated.” Clark uses the law of the pendulum as an example:



The law of the pendulum states that the period of the swing is proportional to the square root of the length. If, however, the weight of the bob is unevenly displaced around its center, the law will not hold. The law assumes that the bob is homogeneous, that the weight is symmetrically distributed along all axes, or more technically, that the mass is concentrated at a point. No such bob exists, and hence the law is not an accurate description of any tangible pendulum. Second, the law assumes that the pendulum swings by a tensionless string. There is no such string, so that the scientific law does not describe any real pendulum. And third, the law could be true only if the pendulum swung on an axis without friction. There is no such axis. It follows, therefore, that no visible pendulum accords with the mathematical formula and that the formula is not a description of any existing pendulum.

From our study of these five logical difficulties, it can be readily seen that science is not capable of giving us any truth. And if the scientific method is a tissue of logical fallacies, why should Christians seek to argue from science to the truth? Simply stated, they should not. Science is useful in accomplishing its purpose, i.e., subduing the Earth. But that is all it is useful for, nothing more.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?314566-The-Biblical-View-Of-Science&highlight=biblical+view+science





In terms of the Ron Paul campaign, how will he fund science or what are his opinions regarding scientific research? Just by definition, the private sector cannot truly fund science - it can fund successful research and engineering, but there are slim chances those profits go towards gaining more knowledge.

As we see with the psuedo-sciences of global warming and Darwinism, you don't want the government to steal from the people to fund scientific research, because the government will opt for "sciences" that are most conducive to the control of free people and their minds....also it is always conducive to "sciences" that permit it to keep its power the easiest.

kuckfeynes
02-01-2012, 01:39 AM
I highly recommend spending a little time investigating the concept of praxeology as set forth by Ludwig von Mises. It will probably help clear a lot of things up for you.

All knowledge has been derived by a fundamental demand by someone, somewhere, for something. Nobody ever conducts a useless experiment in the public nor private sector. There is always a purpose. The question is simply, what is that purpose, where is the demand coming from, and how intense is that demand? If the demand for this knowledge is intense then surely entrepreneurs will be lining up to pour capital into R&D. But, if there is no real economic demand for it, why should people be forced to involuntarily contribute financially to it? If there is only government demand for it, and no real private investments that should send red flags flying! That is how we get the Solyndra's.

tttppp
02-01-2012, 02:12 AM
I highly recommend spending a little time investigating the concept of praxeology as set forth by Ludwig von Mises. It will probably help clear a lot of things up for you.

All knowledge has been derived by a fundamental demand by someone, somewhere, for something. Nobody ever conducts a useless experiment in the public nor private sector. There is always a purpose. The question is simply, what is that purpose, where is the demand coming from, and how intense is that demand? If the demand for this knowledge is intense then surely entrepreneurs will be lining up to pour capital into R&D. But, if there is no real economic demand for it, why should people be forced to involuntarily contribute financially to it? If there is only government demand for it, and no real private investments that should send red flags flying! That is how we get the Solyndra's.

I would like to see the government create incentives for venture capital companies to invest in technologies that at our current path is 15-20 years in the future. The reason for this is because MOST investors are looking for cheap investments in concepts that have been proven so much that there are already hundreds of companies already doing it. Very few investors are willing to take the risk of something that is unique and hasn't been done before, even though the profits could be astronomical. They just won't take the risk.

This is different than Solyndra:

First of all investors would be making the investment decisions, not government
Second, the investments will be in new companies, not old ones that are going out of business
Third, the investments wouldn't go to corporate donors.

Also, I'd like to point out there is no point of obtaining knowledge simply to obtain it. There needs to be a goal. The same can be said for government spending. You don't just spend money just to spend it, there needs to be a specific goal and project in mind.

playpianoking
02-01-2012, 02:16 AM
To the OP, studying and experimenting scientific issues are in my opinion awesome - I love learning more and more. The federal government funding scientific research gives the assumption that the feds own my life and can force me to give up some of the fruits of my labor and dictate where that money will go, and if I don't comply I will be locked in a cage. There may be some research ideas that may have no economic value to the collective, such as studying why frogs ___(fill in the blank as example)___. If I feel that I will be better off personally because I will get entertainment or knowledge satisfaction, then I of course have the freewill to invest in the research if I want to. People are free to put money into what they believe, whether they are looking for a monetary return or not. But why do you want me to subscribe to force and have the government dictate what lobbying buddies they will send my money to? Hope this helps answer the question. :)

Nate-ForLiberty
02-01-2012, 02:18 AM
Also, there are organizations dedicated to scientific research that only exist on donations and other contributions. Not all research is done for profit or by the government.

kuckfeynes
02-01-2012, 09:37 PM
I would like to see the government create incentives for venture capital companies to invest in technologies that at our current path is 15-20 years in the future. The reason for this is because MOST investors are looking for cheap investments in concepts that have been proven so much that there are already hundreds of companies already doing it. Very few investors are willing to take the risk of something that is unique and hasn't been done before, even though the profits could be astronomical. They just won't take the risk.

This is different than Solyndra:

First of all investors would be making the investment decisions, not government
Second, the investments will be in new companies, not old ones that are going out of business
Third, the investments wouldn't go to corporate donors.

Also, I'd like to point out there is no point of obtaining knowledge simply to obtain it. There needs to be a goal. The same can be said for government spending. You don't just spend money just to spend it, there needs to be a specific goal and project in mind.

If a project is so high risk that no private investor or group of private investors would ever voluntarily lend their capital, then that is probably because the project is not economically viable. Yeah we look at Europe and China and ooh and ahh at their fancy infrastructure, but inevitably when the global correction comes it will become an economic burden too great to sustain. Whereas projects done by groups of private investors who fill a market demand will tend to have realistic limits based on the current economic situation. And who knows, some crazy high-risk investor might decide to build something as insane as, say, the Great Northern Railway! (And maybe be the only one to stay afloat during a severe crisis as, say, the panic of 1893.)

The problem with your three points is that they are impossible. If investors were really making decisions instead of government, they'd be doing it voluntarily. Bureaucrats are not investors. Whether the government gives money to new or old companies there is still the same conflict of interest. If you're talking about the government actually creating companies, I believe that's called communism. You cannot separate a bureaucrat from his corporate donor. They need each other to exist.

tttppp
02-01-2012, 09:56 PM
If a project is so high risk that no private investor or group of private investors would ever voluntarily lend their capital, then that is probably because the project is not economically viable. Yeah we look at Europe and China and ooh and ahh at their fancy infrastructure, but inevitably when the global correction comes it will become an economic burden too great to sustain. Whereas projects done by groups of private investors who fill a market demand will tend to have realistic limits based on the current economic situation. And who knows, some crazy high-risk investor might decide to build something as insane as, say, the Great Northern Railway! (And maybe be the only one to stay afloat during a severe crisis as, say, the panic of 1893.)

The problem with your three points is that they are impossible. If investors were really making decisions instead of government, they'd be doing it voluntarily. Bureaucrats are not investors. Whether the government gives money to new or old companies there is still the same conflict of interest. If you're talking about the government actually creating companies, I believe that's called communism. You cannot separate a bureaucrat from his corporate donor. They need each other to exist.

I said the government should create incentives for venture capital firms to invest in new companies. Not for the government to invest directly. Just make it a little more profitable for companies that invest in certain kinds of breakthrough technologies. For example, it would certainly benefit the country if there were more investment in potential health cures for people as opposed to creating a new pill for every bodily function that doesn't cure anything.

Lets say one company created the next greatest invention since the internet. The entire economy would get a huge boost, even if all the other investments failed.

If you had done any research of venture capital firms, very few of them like to take risk, and very few of them like to spend money, even though the returns are potentially astronomical. I would rather see investments in new breakthrough technologies than investments in the next 50 duplicates of facebook.

I don't see how my second point is impossible at all. Its a lot more profitable to invest in new companies than it is to invest in dieing companies like Obama is doing. Thats just a fact.

Third point. If you just made incentives, how does that money end up in corporate donors? Either you qualify for the incentives or you don't. The government wouldn't make the decision based on who contributed to the campaign.

kuckfeynes
02-02-2012, 12:20 AM
And who chooses what companies qualify for these incentives? Who sets the rules? Politicians who will be lobbied by companies to craft the rules in their favor, that's who. Once again the symbiotic relationship of bureaucrat and corporate donor is used to favor one party over another. That gets to the very core of the reason why our culture produces pills and not cures. Resources that may have otherwise been directed toward cures is now sucked up into the government and handed to Big Pharma.

Venture capital firms don't like to take risk and spend money because the economy sucks, and they know as well as we do that the ship is sinking. It's the very restrictions of all kinds that the government places on free economic activity, and the very act of picking winners and losers that creates that environment. Quit stealing their money through taxes, quit devaluing it through inflation, quit piling regulation upon regulation, and they will invest... Big time. And with better results than any wasteful corruptible bureaucracy could ever hope for.

tttppp
02-02-2012, 12:42 AM
And who chooses what companies qualify for these incentives? Who sets the rules? Politicians who will be lobbied by companies to craft the rules in their favor, that's who. Once again the symbiotic relationship of bureaucrat and corporate donor is used to favor one party over another. That gets to the very core of the reason why our culture produces pills and not cures. Resources that may have otherwise been directed toward cures is now sucked up into the government and handed to Big Pharma.

Venture capital firms don't like to take risk and spend money because the economy sucks, and they know as well as we do that the ship is sinking. It's the very restrictions of all kinds that the government places on free economic activity, and the very act of picking winners and losers that creates that environment. Quit stealing their money through taxes, quit devaluing it through inflation, quit piling regulation upon regulation, and they will invest... Big time. And with better results than any wasteful corruptible bureaucracy could ever hope for.

You don't have to lecture me about regulations. I agree. But even without regulations, venture capital firms are risk averse. Most don't want to take on big time projects. You've seen what a project like the internet can do for business. We need to be focused on the next big thing.

When did I ever say I would over tax them, devalue the currency, or over regulate anyone? If you cut all the bs spending and regulations, you'll have plenty to invest in good projects.

As far as your question about who makes the rules, the president would. But lets be clear, I'm just stating how I would run things. It doesn't matter what system you use, if idiots are running it, it won't work. Obviously this system wouldn't work for Obama because he's an idiot and a crook. However, someone like Ron Paul might be competent enough to make it work. As far as Big Pharma is concerned, I would assure you that if I was president, I would grant them no favors. In my opinion the pharmaceutical industry is scum.

The reason our culture produces pills and not cures is because people are brainwashed into believing there is no such thing as a cure. There are people out there that actually think that taking pills for the rest of your life is a cure. There are people out there that think when a doctor diagnoses them with something, that they are actually being cured. People willingly pay for this crap. If people stopped going to the doctors and started demanding cures, things would start to change.