🚀 go-pugleaf

This newsgroup is busy lately.

I wrote, in reply to Scott Chase . . .

> Bravo, Scott.  You have hit upon what I consider to be the core issue of
> supporting basic, pure scientific research.  I believe that in some sense,
> we must consider learning simply for learning's sake to be worthwhile.
> I work in theoretical cosmology -- specifically, the theory of large-scale
> strucutre -- which is probably one of the least practically useful fields
> of physics.  I believe that the justification for funding my research
> is a lot like the justification for being patrons of painters or poets.

and John Baez replied . . .

> I hope, then, that you will satisfied with a level of government funding
> of science comparable to that received by painters and poets.  This means
> either a massive increase in government support of the arts, a massive
> decrease in government funding of pure scientific research, or something
> in between.  

I have to say, John, that I don't follow you here.  If I remember correctly,
you work in mathematical aspects of quantum gravity.  Is this indeed the case?
If so, I would say that you too work in a field that's not very practically
useful.  Nonetheless, I'd say that it's still worth support, because I do
believe that understanding is its own justification.  I am at a loss to
understand how you can support funding of your own research, and yet
disagree with that.

In the same thread, Dale Bass said . . .

>  The people who pay for the toys have not been promised 'art' but
>  'the wondrous byproducts of science'.  Look at the debate over
>  SSC in Congress.  Supporters talked about 'jobs' and 'spinoffs'.
>  In fact, one loon talked about 'hundreds of trillions' of dollars
>  of direct spinoffs from SSC in the next century (from Motorola, I 
>  believe).  Every once in a while they did mention that it might be 
>  useful for science too.  But they did not appropriate over $400 million 
>  in the hope that several hundred HEP people would be in nirvana due to 
>  the lack of a practical use.

Actually, I agree with your complaint, Dale.  Arguments in favor of the
SSC based on the benefits of "spin-offs" are, in my opinion, efforts to
fool people.  It's not that I believe that there will be no technological
gain from the construction and operation of the SSC; I suspect there will
probably be quite a bit.  But I don't know that. And if I don't know that,
I think it would be fraudulent of me to use it as a justification for
support.  The principle argument for the SSC has to be, in my opinion, the
argument that knowledge itself is good.  That is the one argument that
we know to be true.  I know that persuading people to spend $10 billion to
expand our knowledge, maybe resulting in some practical purpose and maybe
not, is difficult to impossible to do.  But I still think it is, in some
sense, the "moral" way to present the proposition.  And if the people as a
whole do not see the need for the project, then maybe that SHOULD be the
end of it.  We do live, after all, in a democracy, and if I wish to spend
a lot of the limited resources our taxpayers have, it's my responsibility
to convince them that it's worth it.

On a different note (and in a different subject), Dale, I disagree when you
write . . .

> And I think you're wrong about the NEA, dead wrong.  If most people
> saw the 'artistic' endeavours that constitute large portions of 
> the expenditure of the NEA, they'd be clamoring to completely eliminate
> the funding. 

The NEA-funded art of Mapplethorpe et al may be reasonably notorious, but
it is a mistake to extrapolate from there to any large fraction of the
work supported by the NEA.  BTW, an NYT article from the height of the
Mapplethorpe/Helms/NEA fiasco mentioned that if the NEA were defunded,
and its grantees were defunded as a result, only two symphony orchestras
in the US would be able to keep functioning.  Those who would clamor to
eliminate NEA funding should chew on that for a while, and think on what
the NEA spends most of its money on.