somebody wrote:
>> Yep. And they do. Complaining that the scientists are spending money is
>> the wrong way to do it.
> 
> You may see it as pointless complaining, 

I didn't say that. I just said it wasn't the scientists you should be 
complaining about. "Science" doesn't need the conscience, because 
"science" isn't what's taking your money against your will.

The scientists are spending their money, not yours. It's the politicians 
spending *your* money.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> But 10 years is a perfectly valid timeframe for many a medical research to
> give fruits.

Only after the fundamental work has been done by scientists.

>> How long between the invention of  relativity and the launching of GPS
> satellites?
> 
> Einstein did not get a $10 billion grant to follow a wild goose chase. He
> explained an existing problem.

And you don't think there's any existing problem in fundamental physics 
the LHC is trying to gather evidence to solve? Like, where does mass 
come from? Why does inertia match gravity?

> Not all science is wasteful, I make no such claim. Just the opposite, I
> claim that the worthiness of scientific research needs to be examined on a
> case by case basis. High energy physics research, amongst all branches of
> science, is the least useful of sciences.

Because, you know, all those nuclear energy plants that France is 
building aren't at all useful.

 > In fact, it has zero application, past, present or foreseeble future.

Do you have a citation for this? Or is this argument from ignorance? 
Because, like, you keep saying this, and it seems to be the center of 
your argument, but I've seen nothing except your statements that the 
research is and must be useless.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>     In '98, the US also allocated 13.6 billion dollars for overall 
> medical research - for that year. Would like to get the current figures.

	BTW, the NIH now invests $28 billion annually on funding medical 
research. In the US alone. Now add up the amounts for the other 
countries who contributed to the LHC...

-- 
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.


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

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> so we should tally up the money spent on cancer 
> research for all those countries combined.

And don't forget the private investments, and the amount of money that 
will be spent on cancer cures even after they're invented, as in paying 
for the drugs etc.

>     I do find this whole discussion amusing given that Congress is 
> considering a $700 Billion bailout for Wall Street. LHC is tiny on that 
> scale.

It's not $700 billion. It's $700 billion at one time. Once you sell off 
for $10 billion the stuff you bought for $700 billion, you can buy 
another $700 billion.

> Moreover, using your type of argument, given how much 
> money has been pumped into it without apparently coming *close* to a 
> cure, I could make the case that brain cancer research is wasteful and 
> funding for it should be reduced.

Plus, there actually is an upper limit on how much you can spend on that 
research, and it isn't obvious to me that we've not come close to that 
limit. Once all competent researchers are sufficiently funded and all 
patients are already engaged in studies, pouring more money into it is 
just wasteful. Not that I think we're there, but I'd like to see 
something about what percentage of people doing cancer research don't 
have enough funding to continue.

And why not talk about funding AIDS research? Merely because *you* don't 
have AIDS?

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:48db0b08$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > But 10 years is a perfectly valid timeframe for many a medical research
to
> > give fruits.

> Only after the fundamental work has been done by scientists.

I don't know what that means. Of course work has been done, we are not
starting from the stone age each time but build on top of existing
knowledge. 10 years is a perfectly fine timeframe to expect results from
applied sciences for most any project starting today.

> And you don't think there's any existing problem in fundamental physics
> the LHC is trying to gather evidence to solve? Like, where does mass
> come from? Why does inertia match gravity?

If it comes from Higgs, we won't be in better shape than we are now. We
already assume that. If it doesn't, we will be in worse shape. In any case,
beyond the discovery of Higgs, there's very little that LHC can give us that
Fermilab did not. But besides that, the real issue is, it's all academic. No
application, no benefit.

> > Not all science is wasteful, I make no such claim. Just the opposite, I
> > claim that the worthiness of scientific research needs to be examined on
a
> > case by case basis. High energy physics research, amongst all branches
of
> > science, is the least useful of sciences.

> Because, you know, all those nuclear energy plants that France is
> building aren't at all useful.

HEP at TeV scales has *nothing* to do with nuclear fission (nor fusion).
That's a gross but common misconception. Physics today is highly
specialized, which laymen do not appreciate the different domains. I suggest
reading the "purpose" section of the Wiki page on LHC.

>  > In fact, it has zero application, past, present or foreseeble future.

> Do you have a citation for this? Or is this argument from ignorance?
> Because, like, you keep saying this, and it seems to be the center of
> your argument, but I've seen nothing except your statements that the
> research is and must be useless.

Please provide an application, if you can. I cannot cite for something that
doesn't exist.

Post a reply to this message

"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:48db0962$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > When budgets are made, for better or worse, spending on science is often
> > taken as a unit. Yes, in that sense, if particle physics gets a
> > disproportionately large sum, you can bet condensed matter will get
less.

> Yes, and my question remains: Why don't you consider an alternative
> solution that makes the pie bigger?

That's much harder than to better divide an existing pie. Pies don't grow on
trees.

> > It's humanity's failing, since as far as I can see from the responses
from
> > this group, people don't know what's good for them. I'm sure many of
you,

> they misled society (without giving citations). You're simply dumping on
> a group that happened to be efficient, rather than be proactive and try
> to find ways to assist the groups *you're* more interested in.

Education and discussion is one way to raise awareness.

> > and possibly I, will develop a form of life threatening cancer at one
point
> > in the near future, within a few years or a decade. It's a certainity
given
> > a large enough population. Would you rather have all those universities
> > spend their research budgets on an academic endavour that will benefit
not a
> > single human being, or one that could benefit many?

> We've been through this ad nauseum. I simply do not share your
> pessimism about the value of the results (even practical outcomes)
> coming out of the LHC. Because of that, your argument does not inspire
> sympathy.

Optimism, unfortunately, doesn't put food on the table, or cure ailments.
How exactly do you personally think you will benefit from LHC (maybe beyond
reading an interesting article in Popular Science at some point)? If people
don't ask themselves similar questions, they do not know or care about their
own well-being. We don't properly exercise our selfishness, if you will.

> > The very essence of existence goes through health. I cannot think of a
> > single reason why medical research should not top all lists when it
comes to
> > resource allocations.

> Perhaps because byproducts of other research can help medicine?

Not always. And there's always economics. HEP is an immensely wasteful way
for its byproducts to help medicine, if even possible.

> >> Also, comparing it with the amount of money the US spends on annually
> >> on some research is disingenuous. It's not as if we build an LHC every
> >> year.

> > We build one every decade or two.

> And they all cost $10 billion?

No,of course not. Next one will cost more.

> I do find this whole discussion amusing given that Congress is
> considering a $700 Billion bailout for Wall Street. LHC is tiny on that
> scale.

True. On the other hand, that $700 billion will merely exchange hands (or be
printed), it doesn't represent actual consumption of resources. You can
waste money without wasting resources (or the opposite, you can make money
without increasing value) - our monetary system is truly odd that way. The
most important resources being "wasted" at LHC are brainpower and time, and
then services, raw materials and energy.

> And then implying others over here simply have mixed priorities will
> win you no sympathy. You're implying that you're trying to create a
> discussion and make people more aware of the issue, yet your tactics go
> quite counter to that goal. You've asked on numerous occasions for
> possible useful benefits to humanity that the LHC may have, yet you
> didn't bother citing *specific* benefits of neglected research on cancer
> or aging.

I don't see why I have to. Medical research has proven itself over the years
as benefiting humanity. I don't think anyone here can honestly question if
medicine is a worthy science to spend money on. And even if one believes
medical research budgets are saturated (!), surely the 40 million or so
uninsured in America, or the 14 million who died in Africa from AIDS alone
since 2000 would have appreciate a little money spent on their health care
needs.

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John <joh### [at] homecom> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> m_a_r_c wrote:
> |
> | Besides finding at last Milliway's Restaurant at the End of the Universe
> | adress !
> |
> | Marc
> |
>
> I ate there only next week :-)
> The food's not as good as it's going to be
>
> John

They do a good bread made from ground bones under that bridge ;)

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
>> Yes, and my question remains: Why don't you consider an alternative
>> solution that makes the pie bigger?
> 
> That's much harder than to better divide an existing pie. Pies don't grow on
> trees.

	I'd argue the opposite. When people are being even more wasteful with 
money than the physicists, it's easier to argue that some of their money 
should be diverted to <insert cause>.

	Now your argument is "Take money from them because it's easier"?

> Optimism, unfortunately, doesn't put food on the table, or cure ailments.
> How exactly do you personally think you will benefit from LHC (maybe beyond

	Why on Earth should I be thinking of personal benefits?

	If the benefits arrive hundreds of years later, the money may have been 
really well spent.

>> Perhaps because byproducts of other research can help medicine?
> 
> Not always. And there's always economics. HEP is an immensely wasteful way
 > for its byproducts to help medicine, if even possible.

	And not always is medical research fruitful.

>> I do find this whole discussion amusing given that Congress is
>> considering a $700 Billion bailout for Wall Street. LHC is tiny on that
>> scale.
> 
> True. On the other hand, that $700 billion will merely exchange hands (or be
> printed), it doesn't represent actual consumption of resources. You can
> waste money without wasting resources (or the opposite, you can make money
> without increasing value) - our monetary system is truly odd that way. The

	Now you're shifting your argument to resources and missing the point. 
If they have $700 billion, ask them to reduce it to $690 billion and put 
$10 billion more in medical research.

	It seems a lot of people are upset at a number of proposals that either 
Bush or Congress on the whole rejected in the last few years (e.g. the 
"small" amount needed to make all children insured) because they were 
deemed too expensive (yet much, much smaller than $700 billion). If the 
politicians really wanted them, this is the best opportunity they'll 
have to get them.

 > most important resources being "wasted" at LHC are brainpower and 
  > time, and then services, raw materials and energy.

	As for resources, I don't see how you can easily shift those to medical 
research. Brain power? You want the physicists to become medical 
researchers? What "time" have they been deprived of? Ditto for raw 
materials and energy. Do we now not have enough materials to build a 
medical center?

> I don't see why I have to. Medical research has proven itself over the years
> as benefiting humanity. I don't think anyone here can honestly question if
> medicine is a worthy science to spend money on. And even if one believes

	Specific areas may, some others may not. Just as with physics. Physics 
research has been immensely useful. But some subprojects may not have 
been. I'd been letting the LHC vs medical research/cancer/aging aspect 
slide (i.e. comparing one project to a whole industry), but the real 
comparison in that case would be physics vs medical research.

> medical research budgets are saturated (!), surely the 40 million or so
> uninsured in America, or the 14 million who died in Africa from AIDS alone
> since 2000 would have appreciate a little money spent on their health care
> needs.

	Woah! I thought you wanted to limit this to science (hence the whole 
restricting to the science research pie and take money from physicists 
angle). Now you're talking about taking money away from science! If 
you're willing to discuss that, then go back to the government waste and 
deal with that.

	I still don't get it. 28 billion in this country annually alone for 
medical research. And I later found out that does *not* include money 
used to come up with actual medicines. The pharmaceutical industry 
spends a comparable amount on that. You said earlier that you wanted 
medical research to always get the largest slice of that pie.

	What makes you think they don't? I honestly don't know, but have *you* 
researched into it?

	Let me ask you a question:

	How much money *does* medical research have to get annually for you to 
say it's OK to spend $10 billion for the LHC? Assuming, of course, the 
current amount of wealth in the world is the same (no inflation games, 
sudden oil discoveries, etc).

	Look, if you simply think the LHC's not worth $10 billion - 
*regardless* of how much other areas of science get, that's fine with 
me, because it is an opinion, and not a fact. Getting upset that others 
don't see it your way seems silly.

	

-- 
AAAAA - American Association Against Acronym Abuse


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

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:21:18 -0600, somebody wrote:

> * I challenge anyone to provide a single practical application that the
> discovery of the top quark (mass) has enabled.
> 
> * I challenge anyone to provide a single practical application that the
> discovery of the top quark (mass) may one day enable. Top quark was
> discovered more than a decade ago at Fermilab, an older generation
> collider than LHC.

Straw man argument.  Assuming that there isn't one *yet* doesn't mean 
there will never be one.  Sometimes it takes years for discoveries like 
this to find their way into practical application.

> * Side effects and peripheral benefits does not justify an endavour of
> this magnitude. If you are going to suggest grid computing as a benefit,
> why not suggest pouring all 10 billion dollars into it? That would give
> much bigger and surer yields.

Until you actually *do* the research, you don't know what the benefits 
will be.  That's why it's called research.

> * Moon program (or in general, manned space exploration programs)
> are/were huge wastes of funds as well. If there were any merits to it,
> we would have visited the moon in the last 40 years. It was
> one-upmanship, clear and simple. Post-facto justifications,
> "space-age-technology" hype as a result is NASA trying to save face.

And yet at the same time, without having done the scientific research 
necessary to put a man in space (and on the moon), we wouldn't have done 
microgravity research at all - because we wouldn't have found it.

And of course the fact that new moon missions are planned should tell you 
that there was in fact some merit to doing it - since we're going again.

> * I'm not a science luddite. Far from it. However, not all science is
> equal, economically and ethically speaking. There are points where the
> law of diminishing returns makes certain pursuits - how shall I put it
> tactfully - stupid. Science without regard to the human factor is just
> stamp collecting.

So knowledge has no value?

> * Sure, most of mathematics is theoretical, but it's much, much cheaper
> to do mathematics, and one can pursue _many_ branches for a fraction of
> the cost. LHC is akin to spending 10 billion dollars to find the 10
> billionth prime. Sure, an impressive feat on paper, but a _singular_
> feat, and with no feasible practicle applications.

Huh, yeah, math is cheaper, so let's put the brain trust to work solving 
Jojo's theorem instead of working on something worthwhile like cancer 
research?  Again, you make an assumption about practical applications 
based on your knowledge and experience and on *now*, not on what might 
come in the coming years, or what might not if the research wasn't done.

> * Laymen are, unfortunately, impossibly confused about the depth and
> breadth of physics and media and publicists prey on this. HEP (high
> energy physics) is a deep, deep end, far removed from mostly applied
> branches of physcis such as quantum optics, quantum computing, condensed
> matter, solid state... etc. I would much welcome a 10 billion dollars
> investment in any or all of those fields, that have proven or at least
> feasible returns on investment.

So because it's too difficult for the layman to understand, it shouldn't 
be done?  That would nix most (if not all) cancer research, since the 
chance of the layman understanding it is practically nil.

> * Some of you claim "yes, but what if we scoffed at this or that
> research in the past..." To those, I remind you of Sagan's (yes, I'm
> aware of the irony, as I believe much of cosmology to be a waste of
> resources too) quote (paraphrased) : "They laughed at Galileo, they
> laughed at Einstein. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown". In other
> words, just because we benefited from expensive experiments in the past
> (though not many, if at all, at this magnitude), we cannot assume any
> expensive experiment is worthwhile. Each case needs to be investigated
> for its own merits.

At the same time, we can't assume any expensive experiment is *not* 
worthwhile.  Unless you've got a crystal ball that will tell you what's 
valuable and what isn't, you don't find out until you actually *do* it.

> * And it's not true that we did not foresee any practical applications
> for the major breakthroughs in the past. It's a romatic myth that
> scientists are always working against the grain and that science is
> completely an unpredicable and wild pursuit.

Sure.  But it's also not true that everything we did that brought a 
scientific breakthrough was predicted - yet those breakthroughs did occur 
because investment was made.  Does it always pay off?  No.  But until you 
do the experiment you won't know that - which is why investors decide 
what to put their money in and take a risk - they do a risk analysis and 
are looking for a return on that investment.  Sometimes it pans out.  
Sometimes it doesn't.

> * Having said that, there have been many dead ends in science too.
> History tends to push them under the rug. Spending has been limited,
> though. As the frontiers are pushed, ever more expensive experiments are
> needed.

Exactly.  But until you go down the road to a dead end, you won't always 
know that it *is* a dead end.  At the same time, very often what is 
learned by going down the road to a dead end helps you with the next 
experiment.  I would venture to say that it's incredibly rare for there 
to be *nothing* of value learned from doing an experiment, even if the 
science doesn't pan out, because you *always* learn from the process of 
doing the experiment.  *Always*.

> * Hence my question, what possible practical expectation is there from
> this experiment? Feel free to ask around. No honest scientist will give
> you an answer.

Sometimes you can't know until you do the experiment.  Just because 
there's no predicted practical application doesn't mean there won't be.

> * Finally, is anyone as naive to think that LHC will be the final
> experiment that explains everything? We have all the way to go to Planck
> energy (well, yes and no, there are suggestions we need not, which is a
> good thing, as we possibly cannot, but my general point is valid): LHC
> will at best answer some questions and posit some even finer ones. Do we
> then build a 10 trillion dollar collider? What about 10 zillion? Where
> do you draw the line in such a singleminded pursuit? For if you believe
> a line needs to be drawn, "where" is a valid question. If not, well,
> even if you don't closely follow high energy physics, you surely can
> agree on probabilistic grounds that it would be a fantastic coincidence
> for you and I to witness the end of physics.

If you can say with certainty what the result of the experiment will be 
without the experiment being done, then you should rent yourself out to 
these organizations, I'm sure they'd love to save lots of money by having 
you just tell them the outcome of every experiment before they actually 
do it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:42:14 -0600, somebody wrote:

> No. Satellites falls into "unmanned" space exploration. I specifically
> made a distinction: Unamanned=good, manned=bad. The fringe benefits of
> manned exploration to unmanned is not worth carrying out manned
> exploration. Spend that money on unmanned, and you can launch 10 times
> more satellites.

One of the more significant benefits of manned exploration of space is a 
better understanding of muscle atrophy - which has had real-world 
practical application in disease research.

Jim

Post a reply to this message