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

[Dinner]

Funding science research

[Jon Miller]

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.

That isn't my experience.

In my experience people are much more interested in my search for dark matter/doing astrophysics than in my measurements of nucleon properties although nucleon properties could conceivably have some application in the next ~20 years (and was much much cheaper).

I think that the US contribution to the LHC is in the ~1billion range. Probably the biggest single donor is the UK government.

http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/28486

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/About/Global-en.html

Compare this to the price of the olympics....

It is part of the human endeavor, and a relatively cheap/efficient component of it. It isn't a 'high cost' item.

JM

[Dauphin]

The Olympics is a waste of money too.

[Jon Miller]

To central planner types.

Not to the people, who are interested in them.

They are part of the human endeavor.

It makes sense to me to argue about how funding should be greater or less for the different aspects of the human endeavor.

But to say 'this is waste' when you don't value it as part of the human endeavor while people (in general) do, suggests you are not the one who should be determining it is waste (in an unbiased way). You can't accurately value it.

For example, the Olympics should be valued by someone who appreciates them. Of course those who don't appreciate them will argue that it is all waste, but that is because they don't appreciate them (they are biased).

Basically I am arguing that based on the views he is presenting here, Kuci is unable to correctly value the LHC because he is lacking in that interest (which is a common interest in the humanity). Actually, based on some of his other views on science (turtles all the way down), this does not surprise me. If I thought it was 'turtles all the way down' then I would also not view science as some achievement/etc in discovery of the universe/some part of knowing the mind of God/and so on.

But if this is the case, it is obvious that he is unable to determine the value of it (basic science research).

JM

[Elok]

But to say 'this is waste' when you don't value it as part of the human endeavor while people (in general) do, suggests you are not the one who should be determining it is waste (in an unbiased way). You can't accurately value it.

For example, the Olympics should be valued by someone who appreciates them. Of course those who don't appreciate them will argue that it is all waste, but that is because they don't appreciate them (they are biased).

This argument could be used equally well to defend any silly waste of time and money you care to name. Pay me eight billion dollars and I'll breed a donkey that can walk on two legs. What, you think that's stupid? Well then, you shouldn't be the one making these decisions because you're biased.

[Dauphin]

But to say 'this is waste' when you don't value it as part of the human endeavor while people (in general) do, suggests you are not the one who should be determining it is waste (in an unbiased way). You can't accurately value it.

For example, the Olympics should be valued by someone who appreciates them. Of course those who don't appreciate them will argue that it is all waste, but that is because they don't appreciate them (they are biased).

The Olympics should be valued by whomever is paying for it. Not by whomever appreciates them. By that logic esoteric interests would get wholly ridiculous levels of funding.

I am paying, in part, for the London Olympics through my taxes, and the inconvenience effect on things like transport. There are some benefits to me as well, but I do not consider them to exceed the cost. When the Olympics are somewhere else, and I don't have to pay for them, I think they are great value to me - I pay nothing and get to watch them.

[Jon Miller]

This argument could be used equally well to defend any silly waste of time and money you care to name. Pay me eight billion dollars and I'll breed a donkey that can walk on two legs. What, you think that's stupid? Well then, you shouldn't be the one making these decisions because you're biased.

People who don't like theater will say 'there should be no theater, it is all just a waste of money'.

Obviously they are biased, they can not reasonably value theater.

Someone who likes theater, is able to say 'I think that the value of this theater should be 10$ per person and not 10000$ per person'.

Because Kuci does not consider science to be part of the human endeavor, but rather just a means to the end of getting new applications in the nearish future, he doesn't 'like' basic science, and so is not able to produce a reasonably value of science (as part of the human endeavor).

For example, if I said that we could send people to the stars, so that they would 'wake' at the star, with some food (frozen eggs/sperm/etc) and with seeds/etc (and bugs/etc) to produce more food, but no terraforming apparatuses. For you to reasonably value this I would first need to find out if you thought there were planets out there that could be lived on without terraforming equipment. If You didn't think such planets existed, than no matter how cheap I went (even if it was only 1 million dollars), you would still say that it was a waste. If you thought that such planets could exist, than you would start thinking about if 10 million was reasonably or 10 billion or 10 trillion.

If the (vast) majority of people don't 'like' something, than that gives a determination of where money should go. But they are not going to be able to value that thing, they are just going to say 'I don't like it so don't want us to spend money on it'.

I am arguing that Kuci should be saying 'I don't like science and so think we should not be funding it' instead of saying 'the value of science is low and money is being misallocated'. And the answer to the first is, most people like science. In fact, the types they 'like' the most are the types that produce the least value (astrophysics, string theory, etc).... scientists usually have to really sell the more useful types to the general public (like climate science....).

JM

[Jon Miller]

Think of it as a market.

The ones who should set the price are the buyers...

JM

[Elok]

...this sounds an awful lot like "you don't like this project whose value can't be quantified, so I'm going to discount your opinion on it in favor of those who do." If a project's only value is that it's part of "the human endeavor," or something equally impossible to put a dollar value on, I'd say that's a good argument for using private funds only. I like theater--or at least some of it--but if I didn't, that wouldn't make it invalid for me to say we shouldn't be spending public money on it. You, as a theater buff, think a performance of "Pygmalion" is worth $40K in arts grants; I think it's worth $0. Since the whole thing is a matter of personal preference, what makes your number worth considering while mine is not?

[KrazyHorse]

IT'S THE DEMOCRATIC WAY

[Jon Miller]

Science (as part of the human endeavor) has large correlations with things which are public goods (things that produce applications in the near future, science education). That is one reason why it is appropriate, and most efficient, for collective funding.

Additionally, governments listening to experts are more effective at furthering the human endeavor than private individuals, because private individuals do not have the time to become experts and are more likely to listen to those who speak the best. The governments do listen to people, and so we do end up with more funding for astrophysics/string theory than an independent expert would consider best, but it is less than if it was just private individuals acting independently.

I am not saying we should discount that some people don't like something. This obviously plays into what part of the 'pie' that something gets.

But if we are deciding how to value that thing, someone who doesn't like it (and so would never give it an honest value) shouldn't be involved in determining the value of it. They aren't part of the 'market'.

JM

[Elok]

I am not saying we should discount that some people don't like something. This obviously plays into what part of the 'pie' that something gets.

But if we are deciding how to value that thing, someone who doesn't like it (and so would never give it an honest value) shouldn't be involved in determining the value of it. They aren't part of the 'market'.

So, they don't get direct input, but people who disagree with them get to factor in their opinion for them? I don't call that "honest value." More like a rigged game. If people have valid interests, they're qualified to speak for those interests themselves. If their interests are not valid or legitimate, they need to know why those interests aren't valid--in clear, precise language, not "you don't appreciate this" or "you don't understand that."

[Jon Miller]

...this sounds an awful lot like "you don't like this project whose value can't be quantified, so I'm going to discount your opinion on it in favor of those who do." If a project's only value is that it's part of "the human endeavor," or something equally impossible to put a dollar value on, I'd say that's a good argument for using private funds only. I like theater--or at least some of it--but if I didn't, that wouldn't make it invalid for me to say we shouldn't be spending public money on it. You, as a theater buff, think a performance of "Pygmalion" is worth $40K in arts grants; I think it's worth $0. Since the whole thing is a matter of personal preference, what makes your number worth considering while mine is not?

To be more explicit, the amount of 'likes' determines how much of the pie the arts get. But since you don't like arts, you can't determine if the performance should be valued at 40k or 10k or 1m. Of if a performance of Hamlet should be valued at 40k, 1k or 1m. Let people who value arts determine if 40k is a waste or not.

You aren't a buyer.

Basic science produces lots of science education and applied technologies. Kuci values the latter and not the former (I would guess), he is not a buyer for the former. The fact that he is not a buyer plays a role in how much of the pie that basic research gets (you can look, in countries where people don't care about basic research, they don't do much), but it doesn't change the fact that many people are a buyer.

His complaint that it isn't 'wasteful' is really just using alternate language to say that he doesn't like it. By using this alternate language he can hope to convince people that like it (and are buyers) that his opinion as a buyer is that it isn't worth it, but this is a misrepresentation.

People who don't think it should be a collective effort, and instead be privately funded should give an argument for why this would be more efficient. Especially given that the goods involved are public, and the inefficiencies which have been common in the private aspect (over funding to theoretic/astrophysics/quackery).

JM

[Jon Miller]

...this sounds an awful lot like "you don't like this project whose value can't be quantified, so I'm going to discount your opinion on it in favor of those who do." If a project's only value is that it's part of "the human endeavor," or something equally impossible to put a dollar value on, I'd say that's a good argument for using private funds only. I like theater--or at least some of it--but if I didn't, that wouldn't make it invalid for me to say we shouldn't be spending public money on it. You, as a theater buff, think a performance of "Pygmalion" is worth $40K in arts grants; I think it's worth $0. Since the whole thing is a matter of personal preference, what makes your number worth considering while mine is not?

To be more explicit, the amount of 'likes' determines how much of the pie the arts get. But since you don't like arts, you can't determine if the performance should be valued at 40k or 10k or 1m. Of if a performance of Hamlet should be valued at 40k, 1k or 1m. Let people who value arts determine if 40k is a waste or not.

You aren't a buyer.

Basic science produces lots of science education and applied technologies. Kuci values the latter and not the former (I would guess), he is not a buyer for the former. The fact that he is not a buyer plays a role in how much of the pie that basic research gets (you can look, in countries where people don't care about basic research, they don't do much), but it doesn't change the fact that many people are a buyer.

His complaint that it isn't 'wasteful' is really just using alternate language to say that he doesn't like it. By using this alternate language he can hope to convince people that like it (and are buyers) that his opinion as a buyer is that it isn't worth it, but this is a misrepresentation.

People who don't think it should be a collective effort, and instead be privately funded should give an argument for why this would be more efficient. Especially given that the goods involved are public, and the inefficiencies which have been common in the private aspect (over funding to theoretic/astrophysics/quackery).

JM

[Kuciwalker]

Jon, this is a ridiculous position.

I like it when I get blowjobs. I suspect very few other people in the world have strong feelings about me getting blowjobs. Therefore *I* should be the one who gets to decide how much public funding there is for giving me blowjobs.