🚀 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. 

Yes, I work in quantum gravity.  Yes, it's not very practically useful
yet.  But the very amusing and revealing aspect of your post is that you
simply ASSUME that I believe that my work deserves government funding!!
In fact, I don't.