"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:48dc20be$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > Fine. But if you are intellectually honest, you will also be able to say
"I
> > have no reason to believe that finding the top quark will have *any*
> > practical applications, and thus won't take it as an assumption" (people
in

> I *am* being intellectually honest. I've already said earlier that I
> have no reason to believe throwing $100 billion at cancer research will
> bring us an iota closer to curing it.

That's an interesting position. How do you think then, if ever, will cancer
be cured?

Conversely, do you believe that the past advances in the field of cancer
treatment occured randomly, not as a result of directed research with
funding?

If you believe that past advances in cancer treatment were a result of
funded research, you *DO* have *some* evidence that "funded and directed
research" works and all is not random or comes out of thin air.

Or, of course, you might believe that while we spent so much already on
cancer research, we have made zero advances.

So what is it? Do we take past methodologies that yielded success as a
reasonable way to proceed in the future? Or do we try random, but zero cost
things since "you don't have a reason to believe money helps with cancer
research"?

> If I had good reason to think so,
> then it wouldn't be research.

You might have a very skewed understanding of research. Research isn't
random, planning is a big part of it, and you should expect results from it.
This seems to be the fundamental point on which we disagree.

> > There's a sharp diminishing of value towards the end of one's lifespan.
Even
> > 100 years is an overly generous period. Would you rather win $1 billion
in
> > the lottery 2 minutes before you die, or $1000 now?

> I already pointed out to you that I don't view (any) science as an
> investment that is supposed to give material returns. The return you get
> is knowledge. Everything else (technology, etc) is a side effect not
> related to the goal.
>
> Given that, your question makes little sense.

Regardless of your views on research, I'd much appreciate if you answered
the question. The question has nothing to do with research or LHC, cancer  -
it's a simple question about lottery (and I'm not going to make deductions
based on your answer, I'm simply curious): Would you rather win $1 billion
in the lottery 2 minutes before you die, or $1000 now?

Post a reply to this message