Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
You make some good points concerning "pure" science and I also agree with your general definition.
It seems to me that we have the luxury of engaging in pure science only because we have a society with excess wealth. If our culture's wealth was limited by sustenance then science, if practiced at all, would focus on the immediate needs of the culture. This is not unlike treatment of the handicapped. If we were more hand-to-mouth then we would probably be more tolerant of say, infanticide against the infirm.
So to that degree, the practices of pure science are a luxury.
My comment concerning NEA and NEH were facetious. However, the point about those particular programs is not unlike the point concerning pure science -- these are luxuries that are affordable only because we have excess wealth. My argument would be for greater parsimony even in times of plenty. This is a corollary to the argument, "Because we can, doesn't mean we should."
So, to the main argument. Why should the government fund anything that is not of tangible and direct benefit to the taxpayer?
|
Correct, I agree with all you have said, but now to the last point. Should the Gov't be funding anything not of tangible and direct benefit? Well, yes and no. Funding of fields related to energy, defense, agriculture, medicine would be a good idea. There are so many myths concerning "breakthroughs" that could save humanity, etc. that are quietly bought up to preserve the status quo, that part of me wants some research being done divorced from the profit motive. An example would be "cold fusion" Probably science fiction but if it actually is possible a private firm figuring it out would make them fantastically wealthy and benefit society little regarding decrease in energy costs. Granted, this starts begging the question, what exactly is "pure science" again? I know that lots of ideas come out of the defense/DARPA type programs and find their way into all sorts of other applications. Its hard to put a label on it, that we can agree on. RT