How 'bout them grants?

[Granny]

Particularly given our financial state right now - and everybody expected to tighten their belts - how do you feel about all these grants that are given for rediculous reasons?

Do we really need a study to determine the standard size of a watermelon? Noooo - you buy a watermelon, cool it, cut it and eat the damned thing.

Do we really need a study to determine the sexual preferences of the DooWoppy caterpillar? Who cares?

I understand grants for medical research, but I think we could do without some of the assinine studys that people want to do (apparently because they have nothing else to do). Why can't Congress just put a clamp down on all these grants? How much money could the government save in a year's time to help cut down on expenses?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So, your suggestion for tightening our belts is further weakening the ability of this country to innovate?

If it wasn't for government grants that sounded stupid, we wouldn't have the internet, flat screen TVs, or nearly any prescription drug on the market.

 

[Oddball]

If it wasn't for government grants that sounded stupid, we wouldn't have the internet, flat screen TVs, or nearly any prescription drug on the market.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc to the absurd extreme.

 

[Big Black Dog]

I would like a grant to investigate how long it takes an ice cube to melt in a glass of Jack Daniels. This would be important research and help us design better ice cubes.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

If it wasn't for government grants that sounded stupid, we wouldn't have the internet, flat screen TVs, or nearly any prescription drug on the market.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc to the absurd extreme.

History of the Internet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On the subject of LED TVs - The science is confusing (even to me) - but it was discovered by my Grandfather, working on a government grant at NYU.

In 1960,[6][7] Martin Pope and his group made the seminal discovery of ohmic, dark injecting electrode contacts to organic crystals,[8] and described the necessary energetic requirements (work functions) for hole and electron injecting electrode contacts. Dark injecting hole and electron injecting electrode contacts are the basis of all current OLED devices, molecular and polymeric, as will be pointed out in the description of the requirements for the construction of successful OLEDs.

In 1963, Martin Pope and his group made the first observation of direct current (DC) electroluminescence, under vacuum, on a pure, single crystal of anthracene, and also on anthracene crystal doped with tetracene.[9] The injecting electrode was a small area silver electrode, at 400 V DC, and the proposed mechanism was field accelerated electron excitation of molecular fluorescence.

In 1965,[10] Martin Pope and his group refined their experiment and showed that in the absence of an external electric field, the electroluminescence in anthracene single crystal was caused by the recombination of a thermalized electron and hole. This paper proved conclusively that the conducting level of anthracene is higher in energy than the exciton energy level.

Organic LED - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And I don't even need to go into the ridiculous amount of money the government funnels into pharmaceutical research.

 

[Oddball]

None of which proves that such innovations wouldn't have been made in the absence of gubmint funding.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

None of which proves that such innovations wouldn't have been made in the absence of gubmint funding.

True. But NOTHING could prove that they would have been made in the absence of government funding. We'll never know what would have happened - it's a quite a debate cop-out.

 

[Oddball]

None of which proves that such innovations wouldn't have been made in the absence of gubmint funding.

True. But NOTHING could prove that they would have been made in the absence of government funding. We'll never know what would have happened - it's a quite a debate cop-out.

It's not a cop out on my part...It's the invocation of flawed logic on your part.

I'm not the one who invoked the post hoc ergo propter hoc argument...You were.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

None of which proves that such innovations wouldn't have been made in the absence of gubmint funding.

True. But NOTHING could prove that they would have been made in the absence of government funding. We'll never know what would have happened - it's a quite a debate cop-out.

It's not a cop out on my part...It's the invocation of flawed logic on your part.

I'm not the one who invoked the post hoc ergo propter hoc argument, you were.

Ok, you're right.

I'll rephrase my statement to remove the logical fallacy - The internet was created because the government funded ARPA, which then created the internet.

 

[Oddball]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc applies here because your basic claim is that the inventions wouldn't even exist, were it not for gubmint involvement.

A claim which cannot be proven because we cannot turn back the clock.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc applies here because your basic claim is that the inventions wouldn't even exist, were it not for gubmint involvement.

A claim which cannot be proven because we cannot turn back the clock.

You are correct. See my above post, I edited my statement.

 

[Oddball]

OK....Fair enough.

Still, there's no evidence at all that the internet wouldn't have eventually been created.

 

[DE3]

If it wasn't for government grants that sounded stupid, we wouldn't have the internet, flat screen TVs, or nearly any prescription drug on the market.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc to the absurd extreme.

A man after my own heart.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

If it wasn't for government grants that sounded stupid, we wouldn't have the internet, flat screen TVs, or nearly any prescription drug on the market.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc to the absurd extreme.

Not really, but okay.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc applies here because your basic claim is that the inventions wouldn't even exist, were it not for gubmint involvement.

A claim which cannot be proven because we cannot turn back the clock.

But we can compare development in countries without such funding.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

OK....Fair enough.

Still, there's no evidence at all that the internet wouldn't have eventually been created.

Or that the economy wouldn't have tanked if the Fed didn't artificially lower interests rates and inflate the monetary supply.


Or that your heart wouldn't have stopped anyway if you hadn't been shot.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Particularly given our financial state right now - and everybody expected to tighten their belts - how do you feel about all these grants that are given for rediculous reasons?

Do we really need a study to determine the standard size of a watermelon? Noooo - you buy a watermelon, cool it, cut it and eat the damned thing.

Do we really need a study to determine the sexual preferences of the DooWoppy caterpillar? Who cares?

I'm fine with government funding science and ignoramouses like you not getting any say in where the funding goes.

I understand grants for medical research

Why, because you like subsidizing pharmaceutical companies with free research?

 

[Dr Grump]

OK....Fair enough.

Still, there's no evidence at all that the internet wouldn't have eventually been created.

Or that the economy wouldn't have tanked if the Fed didn't artificially lower interests rates and inflate the monetary supply.


Or that your heart wouldn't have stopped anyway if you hadn't been shot.

Dude always takes things to the nth degree, which is why he's not a very good debater...

 

[SpidermanTuba]

None of which proves that such innovations wouldn't have been made in the absence of gubmint funding.

No one can prove that you wouldn't still be an idiot if your mother hadn't dropped you on your head - but that doesn't mean your mother dropping you on your head has nothing to do with you being an idiot.

 

[Foxfyre]

So, your suggestion for tightening our belts is further weakening the ability of this country to innovate?

If it wasn't for government grants that sounded stupid, we wouldn't have the internet, flat screen TVs, or nearly any prescription drug on the market.

Did you really mean to type that?