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

[kentonio]

I was actually thinking of Teflon, but it turns out that was invented before that by DuPont. It seems we can thank the space program however for cordless tools, memory phone, baby food, digital image processing and hundreds of other things.

[Hauldren Collider]

I think you mean memory foam, not phone

[kentonio]

Lol, that'll teach me to drink and type.

[giblets]

I was actually thinking of Teflon, but it turns out that was invented before that by DuPont. It seems we can thank the space program however for cordless tools, memory phone, baby food, digital image processing and hundreds of other things.

Why should we believe that those things would not have been invented otherwise?

[Kidlicious]

Yeah, we can't have a God who just thinks all people should be very happy now can we? That would ruin everything.

First, Kuci doesn't give two hoots about anyone but himself. And even if he did he would make all the wrong decisions.

[Hauldren Collider]

I think Kuci's track record on decision-making is fairly solid. He's doing pretty well right now.

[Kidlicious]

I agree, i think it is an example of what people would spend money on if it was less expert based.

I mean, look at Bush and his "Mars Mission".

JM

Huh? It seems that the politicians were right on this one.

[Hauldren Collider]

I agree, i think it is an example of what people would spend money on if it was less expert based.

I mean, look at Bush and his "Mars Mission".

JM

I don't see why a Mars Mission is any more unreasonable than a moon mission, beyond the obvious "it costs more", which was kind of the point for both--it would be hard to do.

Of course, it was a Bush policy, which automatically makes it bad, right?

[Jon Miller]

The moon mission is the sort of thing that would be considered less valuable than SLAC, as far as scientists were concerned ( Ithink).

JM

[kentonio]

Why should we believe that those things would not have been invented otherwise?

Why should we assume they would have been? Some like cordless tools would have turned up because they have obvious earth bound advantages, but there's no guarantee some of the others would. Basically I just find the idea of limiting research to things we already know will have practical outcomes to be ridiculous. If we'd followed that approach throughout history we'd still be living like cavemen.

[Jon Miller]

A lot of advances of the last 100 years have come due to military/basic research needing something and having to invent it, and then it being useful later.

In fact, this is arguably the best reason for our bloated military budget.

JM
(was also true before the last 100 years)

[giblets]

Why should we assume they would have been? Some like cordless tools would have turned up because they have obvious earth bound advantages, but there's no guarantee some of the others would. Basically I just find the idea of limiting research to things we already know will have practical outcomes to be ridiculous. If we'd followed that approach throughout history we'd still be living like cavemen.

If you deny that the benefits from future research can be estimated with any accuracy, then we might as well assign research dollars at random. If, instead, you accept the principle of allocating research money according to what is expected to have the most benefit, that probably rules out giant colliders and moon bases.

[kentonio]

If you deny that the benefits from future research can be estimated with any accuracy, then we might as well assign research dollars at random. If, instead, you accept the principle of allocating research money according to what is expected to have the most benefit, that probably rules out giant colliders and moon bases.

No I don't accept that flawed principle. Advancing scientific knowledge is a worthwhile pursuit in its own right, and the added benefits it brings in terms of opening up new avenues of technologic discovery makes it doubly valuable. Todays 'pointless' research leads to tomorrows wonder drug/new energy source/new method of transportation/new communications device/etc etc etc.

[giblets]

When is the Higgs Boson going to lead to any of those things? If it won't for another hundred years then why build a giant collider now instead of in fifty or eighty years? And why should I believe that knowing whether the Higgs Boson exists is intrinsically good?

[DinoDoc]

Because it pays Jon's salary?