Republican Congressmen Crowdsource Attack on Science

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheTrueCentrist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oooookay…
“*Help us identify grants *that are wasteful or that you don’t think are a good use of taxpayer dollars,” he asks, mentioning “university academics [who] received a $750,000 grant to develop computer models to analyze the on-field contributions of soccer players” and “scientists [who] received $1.2 million to model the sound of objects breaking for use by the videogame and movie industry.”
Click to expand...
I don’t really see how this is an ‘attack’ on ‘science’ but okay.
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
wired.com/wiredscience/2010/12/nsf-youcut-review/

House majority leader Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) announced last week that the YouCut Citizen Review, a crowdsourcing tool for identifying “wasteful spending that should be cut,” would make its very first target the National Science Foundation.
Click to expand...
Did you read the whole article? You really have an issue cutting funding for creating sound effects for the video game industry, when they should be doing that themselves?

If you have no issue, I would find it amazing how some people like to see other people’s money spent. wow.
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
wired.com/wiredscience/2010/12/nsf-youcut-review/

House majority leader Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) announced last week that the YouCut Citizen Review, a crowdsourcing tool for identifying “wasteful spending that should be cut,” would make its very first target the National Science Foundation.
Click to expand...
This is what private investors are for not taxpayers. You take a risk, fund some research, get a patent, build a product or technology, and get a huge return on your investment. Or your idea flops and you pick up the pieces and try again. And the end result is the same: science advances and society benefits.

The idea that these grants all fund legitimate science is absurd. How many times have you seen a study that goes like this: “University scientists find that men think about sex more than women.” Really? About as responsible a use of money as the “Lack of sleep makes you tired” study.
 
ckempston said:
This is what private investors are for not taxpayers. You take a risk, fund some research, get a patent, build a product or technology, and get a huge return on your investment. Or your idea flops and you pick up the pieces and try again. And the end result is the same: science advances and society benefits.

The idea that these grants all fund legitimate science is absurd. How many times have you seen a study that goes like this: “University scientists find that men think about sex more than women.” Really? About as responsible a use of money as the “Lack of sleep makes you tired” study.
Click to expand...
Do you think that Newton got a patent for his theory of gravity? This is the problem with science research, not all discoveries will be profitable by themselves. However, just because they are not profitable does not mean they lack value.
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
Do you think that Newton got a patent for his theory of gravity? This is the problem with science research, not all discoveries will be profitable by themselves. However, just because they are not profitable does not mean they lack value.
Click to expand...
You can’t compare the men/women sex thing with gravity.

Sure, all scientific study has a potential value. But if it is to be funded by coercion from the citizens (which is what taxation is), then there should be at least a semblance of practical value to those average people.

GOD Bless and ICXC NIKA.
 
shockerfan said:
Did you read the whole article? You really have an issue cutting funding for creating sound effects for the video game industry, when they should be doing that themselves?

If you have no issue, I would find it amazing how some people like to see other people’s money spent. wow.
Click to expand...
And this is why lay people are poorly equipped to judge the value of research. It is easy to make someone’s work seem insignificant by only mentioning one possible application. The truth is that there are frequently more, some of which not considered even by the people doing the research. For example, this sound research would help videogames seem more realistic. It could also help car makers design quieter cars. It might allow industrial engineers to simulate the noise levels in manufacturing plants to keep the total volume within acceptable limits.

Just like people unfamiliar with science wrongly dismissed “fruit fly research” as a waste of money, they will make poor decisions regarding what is valuable in the realm of science.
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
Do you think that Newton got a patent for his theory of gravity? This is the problem with science research, not all discoveries will be profitable by themselves. However, just because they are not profitable does not mean they lack value.
Click to expand...
Newton didn’t need a $1M grant to study apples falling. Somehow he was able to excel without govt money.
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
And this is why lay people are poorly equipped to judge the value of research. It is easy to make someone’s work seem insignificant by only mentioning one possible application. The truth is that there are frequently more, some of which not considered even by the people doing the research. For example, this sound research would help videogames seem more realistic. It could also help car makers design quieter cars. It might allow industrial engineers to simulate the noise levels in manufacturing plants to keep the total volume within acceptable limits.

Just like people unfamiliar with science wrongly dismissed “fruit fly research” as a waste of money, they will make poor decisions regarding what is valuable in the realm of science.
Click to expand...
So, you think it’s ok for taxpayers to fund scientific research to benefit corporations? Even if the scientific research may have unforseen benefits, if the video game developer or car manufacturer is so interested in this research. They should fund it.
 
bbarrick8383 said:
So, you think it’s ok for taxpayers to fund scientific research to benefit corporations? Even if the scientific research may have unforseen benefits, if the video game developer or car manufacturer is so interested in this research. They should fund it.
Click to expand...
Maybe they already have. Private companies often delay publishing R&D results that would benefit their competitors. Publicly funded science frequently results in small start ups based on the new information.
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
And this is why lay people are poorly equipped to judge the value of research.
Click to expand...
‘Lay’ people? Well if scientists think they should have the only word in the matter perhaps they should fund it all on their own 🤷
TheTrueCentrist said:
The truth is that there are frequently more, some of which not considered even by the people doing the research. For example, this sound research would help videogames seem more realistic.
Click to expand...
Is that what our scientists are doing these days! http://img3.mocospace.com.edgesuite.net/wap/images/emoticons/laugh.gif

Now thats beneficial to the world…great ‘discovery’ there. Now I might be able to hear the strippers sliding up and down the poles on Grand Theft Auto http://www.ethanwiner.com/Smileys/Uhoh2.gif
 
Charlotte408 said:
‘Lay’ people? Well if scientists think they should have the only word in the matter perhaps they should fund it all on their own 🤷
Click to expand...
So should religious leaders?
Charlotte408 said:
Is that what our scientists are doing these days!
Now thats beneficial to the world…great ‘discovery’ there. Now I might be able to hear the strippers sliding up and down the poles on Grand Theft Auto
Click to expand...
Exactly, since you are unable to understand the implications of the research, you cannot think of uses besides the ones people tell you. It is easy, therefore, for someone to sway your opinion for or against research by using weasel words and giving poor examples (either banal or unrealistically grandiose) of the researches’ use. This is why those who lack an understanding of scientific research are poor judges of the merits of scientific research.
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
So should religious leaders?
Click to expand...
No one forces my hand into the offering basket. No one tells me exactly how much I have to give. If I don’t want to give at all, I won’t.

But I always doooooo http://www.ethanwiner.com/Smileys/Love.gif I can’t help it, I love and adore my Mother Church…won’t let her go under…

Its interesting my whole life everyone always told me the Church told people how to live their lives, controlled them, etc…But really, the Church hasn’t made me do anything. The government, on the other hand, I’m coming to realize will force me to purchase their product (healthcare), tax - take my money and use it for whatever they like regardless how I feel (abortion, video games :rolleyes:)…
TheTrueCentrist said:
Exactly, since you are unable to understand the implications of the research, you cannot think of uses besides the ones people tell you. It is easy, therefore, for someone to sway your opinion for or against research by using weasel words and giving poor examples (either banal or unrealistically grandiose) of the researches’ use. This is why those who lack an understanding of scientific research are poor judges of the merits of scientific research.
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying, but I don’t think you are understanding what I am saying.

Athiests may not understand all the teachings of the church. But that doesnt mean that those teachings are not beneficial, or of value, etc.

But just because they are or might be of value, doesn’t mean they are to that atheist. He doesn’t have to prescribe to them, he doesn’t have to give offerings. If in the end, some good comes out of it, then cool…but until he’s sure he doesn’t want a part of it.

I’m cool with that. Because there are people like me who do care and who will help out the cause.

I’m saying the same should go for scientists. Okay, in cases like AIDS or Cancer, something very serious that affects lives, okay, public funding…

But cant you fund your video game audio garbage and other little non sense tid bit thingys here and there by people who actually give a hoot?
 
The YouCut Review site gives you helpful hints to search for which grants should be targeted and then you get to decide which research has merit and which doesn’t. Am I really that eminently qualified to decide which research sounds like bull and which doesn’t? Is the average citizen able to make that same determination? Perhaps scientists know a little more about what their project does or will do than I do.

This really seems like little more than grandstanding with the results producing little tangible in trying to get rid of government waste.

ChadS
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top