Anyone Else Staying Up For The CERN Announcement About The Higgs Boson Tonight?

[Dauphin]

Excuse my ignorance, but who funds CERN (as in ultimately holds the purse strings for practical purposes), and on what basis did/do they choose to fund it?

[Jon Miller]

So your argument is that absent the LHC, those funds would have been directed towards even more worthless science? Its virtue is in being the least bad option available? Bull****. There are plenty of things we could spend the money on, such as robotics or AI, that plausibly have ACTUAL VALUE.

People are interested in basic science.

People will fund (and do already) things like string theory, cold fusion, astronomy, and so on.... which do less for our understanding of the universe than the LHC does. If you remove funding from LHC, then it would go to things of the same sort that people are interested in (cold fusion/etc). It wouldn't go to AI/Robotics, because that isn't part of the same search.

It doesn't press the same buttons or satisfy the same needs.

Jm

[Imran Siddiqui]

You are actually a worse sophist than Ben. No one cares that the government has the practical and even legal ability to do these things. We are claiming that they are BAD IDEAS you stupid ****.

"You don't get to decide what to do with [my money]" isn't a practical/legal argument? And then Ben follows it up by asking where does that right come from, the Constitution?

So it IS a practical/legal argument you stupid ****.


Furthermore, quite obviously the "bad idea" side start from an entirely different premise than the "good idea" side. No one convinces anyone, so it ends up (here) as the "good idea" side has far more votes in various legislatures than the "bad idea" side. End of discussion.

[regexcellent]

Science is vaguely cool but finding the Higgs boson is not billions of dollars cool. If you think finding the Higgs boson is that cool then pay your own money.

Does finding the Higgs boson actually update any existing theories? As far as I can tell, it just confirms the standard model of physics, which has been around for decades.

[Asher]

Science is vaguely cool but finding the Higgs boson is not billions of dollars cool. If you think finding the Higgs boson is that cool then pay your own money.

Exactly how much has the US contributed?

Does finding the Higgs boson actually update any existing theories? As far as I can tell, it just confirms the standard model of physics, which has been around for decades.

Confirming a theory is just as valid as "updating" one. And yes, it does update theories also.

[Kuciwalker]

"You don't get to decide what to do with [my money]" isn't a practical/legal argument?

It's not an argument I have advanced, so I don't see the relevance.

And then Ben follows it up by asking where does that right come from, the Constitution?

Who the **** cares what Ben says?

[Kuciwalker]

People are interested in basic science.

No, they really aren't. Funding science is a status-raising behavior for politicians, and so it gets done, but very few actual human beings care.

Note that it is a bad thing for "funding science" to be status-raising; it leads to politicians allocating resources wastefully.

[Kuciwalker]

Confirming a theory is just as valid as "updating" one. And yes, it does update theories also.

If a theory can only be tested with multibillion dollar facilities then it cannot possibly have any useful near-term application. If we could actually build some kind of useful device whose behavior depended on those theories then that device would be able to test them.

[Kuciwalker]

I'm still waiting for you to tell me how you deduced my revealed preferences regarding my political philosophy given the approximately nothing you know about my economic choices.

You don't live in squalor devoting every spare dollar to science, and priors alone let me guess that you would blanche at directing even 10% of GDP to "science".

[Lorizael]

You don't live in squalor devoting every spare dollar to science, and priors alone let me guess that you would blanche at directing even 10% of GDP to "science".

This is where you need to read what I write more carefully. That's my philosophy with regards to this government's spending priorities, not my own. I have a different set of rules for my own priorities.

As far as your priors, you'll have to forgive me for not reflecting them.

[regexcellent]

Exactly how much has the US contributed?

As far as I know, none, thank God. We waste our money on plenty of other things, most of which are actually more useful. Like bridges to nowhere in Alaska.

[Elok]

Who the **** cares what Ben says?

[Asher]

If a theory can only be tested with multibillion dollar facilities then it cannot possibly have any useful near-term application. If we could actually build some kind of useful device whose behavior depended on those theories then that device would be able to test them.

Reality check, here.

A single B-2 bomber costs what, over $2B?

And we're *****ing about spending billions to answer one of the fundamental questions plaguing modern scientists?

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's not an argument I have advanced, so I don't see the relevance.


Who the **** cares what Ben says?

The posts you quoted was a response to Ben's posting entirely. I suggest you be a bit less vain.

And FWIW, whether it was you a few pages back (which conversation you could have continued rather than quote a response I was making to Ben) or to Ben on the issue of representative democracy, it was in response to a post complaining about the legislature allocating your personal wealth. Complain about wasteful spending all you want, but if you are going to complain about the government deciding where to allocate the money you are taxed upon, a proper response is - yeah, that's what governments get to do.

[Kuciwalker]

Reality check, here.

A single B-2 bomber costs what, over $2B?

And we're *****ing about spending billions to answer one of the fundamental questions plaguing modern scientists?

What is it with the parade or terrible excuses from LHC supporters? It would be great if we spent less money on bombers, too!