somebody wrote:
>> 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?

	I don't know that it will.

> 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?

	False dichotomy. Directed research with funding can lead to random 
discoveries. They're not exclusive.

> 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.

	This is a classic Bayesian vs frequentist dilemma. I can't use past 
experience to predict the result of *different* actions in the future.

	So yes, I believe some of the past advances in cancer treatment were a 
result of funded research, and that gives me evidence that if you repeat 
that research, you will reproduce some of those 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"?

	I didn't suggest not putting funding into (any) research, nor did I 
suggest total randomness in funding it. I'm merely questioning your 
assertion that not enough is going in, given that you refuse to quantify 
what you think is "enough".

	I'm also suggesting that for all I know, you may never cure cancer if 
you focus research on cancer, because a) cancer may not have a cure, and 
b) you're ignoring possible advances in other fields that may help, but 
are totally unobvious and unintuitive.

> 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?

	Given the scenario, I'll take the $1000. Of course, if I had a family, 
I may act differently.

-- 
AAAAA - American Association Against Acronym Abuse


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message