Hilarious! 2300 top scientists ask Trump and GOP to respect science. Falling down laughing!

[rdean]

Read please don't cut our funding.......

Agreed.

But no contemporary has ever shown empirically that governments need fund science—the assertion has been made only on theoretical grounds. Remarkably, the one economist who did look at the question empirically found that the evidence showed that governments need not fund science, but his claim has been for a long time ignored, because he was notoriously a libertarian—and libertarians have no traction amongst the scholars, politicians, and corporate welfarists who dominate the field. In 1776, moreover, that economist supported a revolution, so he is not only outdated but he was, presumably, subversive of the social order.

Nonetheless, if only out of antiquarian interest, let’s look at what this empiricist reported. The evidence showed, he wrote, that there were three significant sources of new industrial technology. The most important was the factory itself: “A great part of the machines made use of in manufactures … were originally the inventions of common workmen.” The second source of new industrial technology were the factories that made the machines that other factories used: “Many improvements have been made by the ingenuity of the makers of the machines.” The least important source of industrial innovation was academia: “some improvements in machinery have been made by those called philosophers [aka academics.]” But our economist noted that that flow of knowledge from academia into industry was dwarfed by the size of the opposite flow of knowledge: “The improvements which, in modern times, have been made in several different parts of philosophy, have not, the greater part of them, been made in universities [ie, they were made in industry.]” Our empiricist concluded, therefore, that governments need not fund science: the market and civil society would provide.

Arguments for the subsidy of so-called public goods, moreover, were dismissed by our libertarian economist with: “I have never known much good done by those who have affected to trade for the public good.” In particular, arguments by industrialists for subsidies were dismissed with: “people of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversions, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public.” And our revolutionary underminer of the social order dismissed the idea that wise investment decisions could be entrusted to politicians, even to that nice Mr Obama, because he distrusted: “that insidious and crafty animal, vulgarly called a statesman or politician.”

Our long-dead economist recognized the existence of public goods, which he described as those “of such a nature, that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals”, but he could not see that scientific research fell into that category.


The economist in question was, of course, Adam Smith, whose Wealth of Nations from which these quotes were drawn was published in 1776. And he is indeed long-dead. Yet the contemporary empirical evidence supports his contention that governments need not support scientific research. Consider, for example, the lack of historical evidence that government investment in research contributes to economic growth.
The Case against Public Science

What's hilarious about Republicans, science and government is their determined ignorance.

Business funds scientific research to make money. So the science they study tends to be limited. Aimed at whatever they specialize in. Doing research from the bottom up is very expensive.

The company I retired from would pay a university to do research and design needed equipment since the company supported the Automotive and Aerospace industries. Of course, the piece of equipment was hardly manufacturable. And it took a team of 9 or so to design it. Not affordable. That's where the engineers came in. To take something developed in the lab and turn it into a production ready item. I worked on one where they put a reset button under a water tank, so you had to flip the whole thing over to hit the reset. A water purity sensor was between the pump and the tank. Impossible to wire or change. And it was huge. Where it wasn't crammed together, it was super spread out. When we finished, it was serviceable, sleeker and more efficient.

Other countries support their scientists. China, Russia and so on have massive government support for their scientific community. Because they aren't ignorant and understand the value.

Fucking Republicans are so stupid, they don't know what our scientists actually do. Can you imagine if they are allowed to massively cut funding science for this country what will happen? We truly will end up a third world country. We won't be able to protect our interests or our country. Troops on the ground with guns can't fight drones or modern technology.

But when I look at voter suppression and gerrymandering anti American Republicans I wonder where we are headed anyway. How can we promote liberty to the rest of the world when they promote suppression, ignorance and racism here?

The empirical evidence does not support your hypothesis. The United States did not become the world's scientific and technological leader because of government funding of science, it became that way because of the most free and emancipated people. Sorry buddy.

Perhaps we aren't actually as "free" as you want to believe.

North Carolina Is Engaging in “Insane” Jim Crow–Style Voter Suppression, Says Federal Judge

Trump has gotten nearly $3 billion in ‘free’ advertising

Will Trump's Muslim Ban Be Included in the GOP Platform?

Why Is the Media Ignoring Ted Cruz's Embrace of 'Kill the Gays' Pastor? | The Huffington Post

Donald Trump says he'd like to punch protester 'in the face' | Daily Mail Online

Nice. You've really got your nose to the MSM beat for the fear mongering hyperbola, don't you? I thought we were talking about free markets, not divide and conquer fear porn.

Do you think you would be more free in Russia, China, Iran, Libya, Afghanistan, etc.? Or do you think regulations would be less onerous in Europe? Feel free to go do your science there.

That's your bottom line? Your gold standard? That we aren't as bad as Russia, China, Iran, Libya and Afghanistan?

Keep listening to anti science, anti education, pro suppression, pro hate Republicans and we will be.

 

[MisterBeale]

You listen to Science Friday, don't you?

 

[rdean]

You listen to Science Friday, don't you?

No, what is Science Friday?

 

[rdean]

Look at what USMB Republicans in this thread write about science. And they certainly represent the majority of Republicans in the nation.

Republicans think they can build a wall around the country and keep any knowledge that scares them out. But they can't. Their numbers are dwindling. Eventually, the stupid will be overcome. And it's so clear you don't need to be a scientist to see it coming.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Look at what USMB Republicans in this thread write about science. And they certainly represent the majority of Republicans in the nation.

Republicans think they can build a wall around the country and keep any knowledge that scares them out. But they can't. Their numbers are dwindling. Eventually, the stupid will be overcome. And it's so clear you don't need to be a scientist to see it coming.

And yet they point fingers at Iran and Saudi Arabia for doing the same thing. They have the same backwards mindset.