🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1dsf8tINNc9p@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu>, metzler@pablo.physics.lsa.umich.edu (Chris Metzler) writes:
|> 
|> 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.

There is one aspect to this that is being missed.  In the end, the
product of the effort is a formulated description of the behavior
of reality.  Hubble's red shift is there for anyone to see, and any
cosmology needs to include it.  Art is a different kind of expression.
In science, the product is subject to peer review, debate in public
forums (journals, conferences, etc), and must be compared to
experimental results.  Art stands on its own as a self-validating
expression of the artist.

|> 
|> 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.
|>

I wouldn't be so hard on spin-off's.  Some spin-off's have been very good
for our country, and for the world at large.  At the same time, I think
the value of spin-offs has been somewhat inflated, partly due to the 
necessity of defending against the attitude that any effort that does 
not pay for itself from the outset is not worthy of support.
 
|> 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.
|> 

Art is the hardest thing to apply objective cost accounting to.  Even in
scientific research, not all work that has received funding -- even with
all parties being competant and acting in good faith -- has yielded fruit
even in the context of peer review.  In a sense, this is much like Michelson's
measurement of the speed of the earth through the ether... what a failure!
Or, how about all the failed cosmological descriptions?  What about Olber's
paradox?  Yet, I know there's lots of people who say they don't want to
pay for it.

There's also lots of people who say that if all those symphony orchestras
cannot pay for themselves, then we have too many of them, and they should
not be performing.  Would that be a loss?  Lots of people don't think so.
They, afterall, enjoy watching "Lavern and Shirley," and feel that shows
of that calibre have demonstrated their commercial appeal by funding
themselves.

Yet, without the funding that supports arts such as symphonies, or local
summer brass bands in little towns, or non-profit arts groups that provide
a channel for artists to develop commercial viability, many artists who
have become commercially viable would never have a chance to get started;
and lots of people would not have an opportunity to see a symphony since
they'd have to travel across 1/2 a continent to get to one.  In the case
of sciences, there would be very little incentive to develop the skills
and attitudes of the raw intellect of each new generation; kids who did
well in high-school physics would have no better aspiration than to work
in the corner grocery (ooops, they don't have many of those any more),
or on a factory floor (ooooops, they've all moved to Mexico or overseas),
or as clerks in offices (ooops, there's not too much need for that any 
more either), or how about selling crack (ahh... now that's the industry
of the future -- the only thing around for which there remains real demand
in this country).
 
Spin-offs? While it might be arguable that the spin-offs aren't worth as 
much to society as some advocates of funding have suggested, the argument
can be turned around.  Funding projects should be a natural function of
a healthy society with healthy aspirations.  It is arguable that a society
that is unwilling to fund projects that can enrich culture -- even at
the risk of Maplethorp's ugly art -- has no aspirations and is really sick.
One spin-off worth talking about is just to have a population sufficiently 
well educated to have aspirations to make something wonderful.


Dan

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel E. Platt                                      platt@watson.ibm.com
The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------