How 'bout them grants?

[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.

Did you really mean to type that?

Yes. But as Dude already pointed out the logical fallacy in my first post, I have since re-worded my claims.

I mean, feel free to read the thread.

 

[Oddball]

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.

Well, from a logical perspective, you might have some kind of point....or another....or another...

Yet, the calling to question of the fallacious post hoc ergo propter hoc argument stands, to the point that the poster who employed said fallacy admitted so of his own accord.

So, what are you trying to prove here?

 

[elvis]

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.

Well, from a logical perspective, you might have some kind of point....or another....or another...

Yet, the calling to question of the fallacious post hoc ergo propter hoc argument stands, to the point that the poster who employed said fallacy admitted so of his own accord.

So, what are you trying to prove here?

that spider knows how to bend the Usmb rules?

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Or we can look at the patents on file in the U.S. Patent Office of which the vast majority involved no government funding at all. Of course the government does fund a lot of R&D in the defense industry and I think more than 30% of all medical research done in the USA. Taking all that into account, even without government funding, the USA still patents substantially more new inventions and improvements on inventions than any other country in the world.

All this is to say, that a free people are simply going to be more creative and work harder at developing stuff just for the hell of it as well as for fame and fortune. So there is no evidence that government money has been necessary to invent anything.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

No not really. ARPA came out of a gov't project, true. But that wasn't a sufficient condition for the Internet as we know it to exist. It exists because of innovations by companies making routers, software, websites, etc etc. This was the whole tech boom of the 90s, some of which actually did some good.
And look at the history of innovation and invention in this country. Traditionally it did not happen with government funding.
In fact, arguably there would be more if such funding did not exist, since it tends to centralize decision making and eliminate possibly more promising avenues of research.

 

[Gatekeeper]

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?

The watermellon size reminded me of Japan and their Square Watermellons so they can ship more in less space.

snopes.com: Square Watermelon

 

[Ravi]

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.

Don't be silly. Somalia has pirates...

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

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?

When you have a finical crisis you you cut back on the frills

Monkeys are getting high for science in North Carolina.

An analyst at the Civitas Institute seized on that image when selecting a cocaine addiction study at Wake Forest University Medical School as No. 1 on a list of the "10 worst federal stimulus projects in North Carolina." Civitas' Brian Balfour takes swipes at projects, writing that they "seem completely unrelated to avoiding an economic 'catastrophe,' but rather an ad hoc satisfaction of countless dubious wish lists."

So, what is the $71,623 federal stimulus grant paying for?

Stimulus funds pay for monkey research in N.C. | McClatchy

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

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.

Don't be silly. Somalia has pirates...

at least they are doing something to stop global warming

 

[Zander]

The OP makes a valid point - we have fraud, waste and abuse at all levels of government and a massive national debt to deal with because of it. We need to end the silly programs and grants (like watermelon studies) that are clearly a waste of money.

 

[editec]

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?

How about those grants to help local cops buy more police toys.

You object to that, too, right?

 

[Gatekeeper]

The OP makes a valid point - we have fraud, waste and abuse at all levels of government and a massive national debt to deal with because of it. We need to end the silly programs and grants (like watermelon studies) that are clearly a waste of money.

This nonsense has been 'red flagging' for generations yet it continues. Why? because the politicians don't give a crap about conserving money, especially when it comes from us, the taxpayers.

The quiet complaining accomplishes nothing unless accompanied by many thousands of taxpayers demanding an end to these incredibly stupid studies......oh wait, that's been done and.....the politicians still gave us the finger didn't they?

 

[Granny]

I think I stated I understood medical research. Things such as medical and pharmaceutical research ultimately result in things that have real meaning and real impact on people. There are some studies that are worth having. It's the idiotic crap that should not be funded by government grants.

As has already been pointed out, a good number of the grants for studies of this, that or the other could very well be funded by other means such as colleges, private enterprise or whatever. Does the sexual preferences of some damned caterpillar really make a huge impact on the general welfare of the entire population of the planet? Does the size of a watermelon really have a huge impact on anything? NO.

 

[Ravi]

I think I stated I understood medical research. Things such as medical and pharmaceutical research ultimately result in things that have real meaning and real impact on people. There are some studies that are worth having. It's the idiotic crap that should not be funded by government grants.

As has already been pointed out, a good number of the grants for studies of this, that or the other could very well be funded by other means such as colleges, private enterprise or whatever. Does the sexual preferences of some damned caterpillar really make a huge impact on the general welfare of the entire population of the planet? Does the size of a watermelon really have a huge impact on anything? NO.

Scientists know that when watermelon is consumed, citrulline is converted to arginine through certain enzymes. Arginine is an amino acid that works wonders on the heart and circulation system and maintains a good immune system, Patil said.
“The citrulline-arginine relationship helps heart health, the immune system and may prove to be very helpful for those who suffer from obesity and type 2 diabetes,” said Patil. “Arginine boosts nitric oxide, which relaxes blood vessels, the same basic effect that Viagra has, to treat erectile dysfunction and maybe even prevent it.”
While there are many psychological and physiological problems that can cause impotence, extra nitric oxide could help those who need increased blood flow, which would also help treat angina, high blood pressure and other cardiovascular problems.

Watermelon May Have Viagra-effect

 

[rightwinger]

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

The issue isn't whether these innovations would have eventually happened but whether the grants were an effective use of money.

R&D stops occuring in the private sector once economic times turn bad. The government and major universities engage in research that may appear to be inane to an uninformed observer. There are indeed many dead ends and false leads....but the process of R&D does lead to innovation

 

[editec]

Some research that is tremendously valuable to society generally, doesn't offer any immediate advantage to those who discover it.

We cannot expect private industry to fund that kind of research, but it still behooves us to fund it as a society.

Now it's easy to lampoon research that is obviously goofy, but seriously....do we always know what research will be useful and what won't?

I mean what was the immediate benefit of us learning that E=MC2?

Now try to imagine what industry (existing in the turn of the century) would have supported that frizzy headed thinker who came up with that WORTHLESS data point.

 

[rightwinger]

Some research that is tremendously valuable to society generally, doesn't offer any immediate advantage to those who discover it.

We cannot expect private industry to fund that kind of research, but it still behooves us to fund it as a society.

Now it's easy to lampoon research that is obviously goofy, but seriously....do we always know what research will be useful and what won't?

I mean what was the immediate benefit of us learning that E=MC2?

Now try to imagine what industry (existing in the turn of the century) would have supported that frizzy headed thinker who came up with that WORTHLESS data point.

I think we should let Granny decide which research should be funded. She obviously has the best perception of what research will lead to valuable discoveries

 

[editec]

Some research that is tremendously valuable to society generally, doesn't offer any immediate advantage to those who discover it.

We cannot expect private industry to fund that kind of research, but it still behooves us to fund it as a society.

Now it's easy to lampoon research that is obviously goofy, but seriously....do we always know what research will be useful and what won't?

I mean what was the immediate benefit of us learning that E=MC2?

Now try to imagine what industry (existing in the turn of the century) would have supported that frizzy headed thinker who came up with that WORTHLESS data point.

I think we should let Granny decide which research should be funded. She obviously has the best perception of what research will lead to valuable discoveries

Why, rightwinger, if I didn't know what a sincere guy you were, I might suspect you were being sarcastic.

 

[rightwinger]

Some research that is tremendously valuable to society generally, doesn't offer any immediate advantage to those who discover it.

We cannot expect private industry to fund that kind of research, but it still behooves us to fund it as a society.

Now it's easy to lampoon research that is obviously goofy, but seriously....do we always know what research will be useful and what won't?

I mean what was the immediate benefit of us learning that E=MC2?

Now try to imagine what industry (existing in the turn of the century) would have supported that frizzy headed thinker who came up with that WORTHLESS data point.

I think we should let Granny decide which research should be funded. She obviously has the best perception of what research will lead to valuable discoveries

Why, rightwinger, if I didn't know what a sincere guy you were, I might suspect you were being sarcastic.

Sincerity???

I can fake that

 

[blu]

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

some of the medical stuff is provable. many times the government specifically funds stuff that private sector pharma won't. a common area is where its a disease or condition that a very small percentage of a percentage of people get so the phrama people would never recoup the losses paid to researchers. I can't blame pharma for not doing this since it would be a huge loss of money but the government does help here.