 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"somebody" <x### [at] y com> wrote in message news:48dcf516$1@news.povray.org...
> Google "benefits of high energy physics". On top, we find:
>
> http://www.er.doe.gov/hep/benefits/index.shtml
>
> Oh no! I was wrong all along. Look just how many benefits there are!
On the matter of incidental benefits, just one more thing I forgot to say in
my previous post: If you build a $10 billion medical research facility, you
can bet that they too will need superconductor magnets and state of the art
computers and networks, detectors, analysis equipment... etc. So you will
still get all the incidental benefits supporting the subsisidary industries
and research, but on top of that, you get the benefits from the main
research. For this reason, incidental benefits listed above are not really
benefits of HEP at all, they are benefits of any large and advanced
facility. The questions you have to ask, if you already decided to spend $10
billion, should relate to the main purpose of research to be conducted at
that facility.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> Who needs to care about a billion years from now? Do you think Etruscans
> worried about us?
Maybe not, but the Mayans did.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> news:48dc0501@news.povray.org...
>> somebody wrote:
>>>> Only after the fundamental work has been done by scientists.
>
>>> I don't know what that means.
>
>> I mean that (for example) research on genetic causes/cures for cancer
>> wouldn't have been possible at all without high-energy physics research.
>>
>> (Figure out how the structure of DNA was determined, for example.)
>
> I'm at this point guessing that you might be a little confused of the "high
> energy" part in "high energy physics".
No. But basic radioactivity was "high energy" back in Curie's day, for
example. Discounting advanced in basic battery-powered electricity
because they're not "high energy" ignores the point that they're
high-energy compared to amber and fur.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
>> I can see you did not bother answering how much you'd like to see
>> medical research get before you're willing to be OK with spending $10
>> billion for the LHC.
>
> That's easy: $100,000 billion.
>
> And that's a very low figure when you think about it. Even if it only saves
> 10 lives (gross, gross underestimate), I'm saying that the value of one
> human's life to me is about the same as satisfying the curiousity of about
> 1000 or so physicists. If you were faced with such a dilemma and were given
> a two buttons, which one would *you* push?
So put another way, your answer is essentially "Never".
--
AAAAA - American Association Against Acronym Abuse
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
>> The difficulty is you seem to be suggesting that we only do projects when
>> we know exactly
>
> Not exactly, but reasonably sure that it may have applications. And
> prioritize with benefits to humans in mind.
>
Nearly every major discovery was a result of accident, or basic
research, where the known outcome wasn't predictable, not "prioritizing
with benefits to humans in mind". Ever heard of teflon? Guess what, if
the company that invented it had thought "only" as you do, we wouldn't
have it, because they where not trying to get that product, had no idea
that it was even possible, and no clue how to even attempt to make it,
but they ***where*** smart enough to tell their employees, "If something
goes wrong, and you end up with something you don't recognize, save it,
and let someone look at it, don't just throw it away." Nearly every
other research company "prior" to that took the attitude, "Well, its not
what we expected or wanted, so... throw it out."
Another example? Modern die technology. It took nearly 100 years for
anyone to figure out that the accident some guy, who died poor,
documented in his journal was something that could be used to
permanently die cloth, and not just an obscure accident, to be avoided,
while making fracking iodine.
There is a reason we do basic research. The reason is, if you don't, you
miss things that could provide better batteries, cleaner water, improved
crop performance, cheaper what ever, etc. If all you ever do is
"applied" research, then the only time you make real jumps in technology
and science it via shear accident, and then 80% of the time, "applied
research" projects will toss the result in a dumpster, having no clue
what they hell they just stumbled on. I would say, probably 50% of the
progress we have made is by those discoveries, while the other 50% has
been the small, incremental, changes that, while beneficial, are
responsible for "some" technologies being higher cost than they need to
be, because all the effort goes into improving "existing", widely used,
technologies, or worse, there are a few small issues that need to be
"fixed" with technology you can only get by researching stuff you don't
"know" how to get yet, that will make it viable. Applied research isn't
going to close those gaps. Its going to be some guy some place mixing
stuff in a lab, who has no clue if any of it will be useful at all, but
*hopes* that something he is doing will solve somebodies, problem at
some point.
Heck, their may be something sitting in a lab some place, right now,
which could make SSD drives cheaper than HDD, *but*, it wasn't invented
by the guys making SSD technology. Oops! Kind of inconvenient, huh?
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
m_a_r_c wrote:
> web.48dc91a9fe1a0943f8d41d850@news.povray.org...
>> Nitpicking I know but some science is founded on
>> beliefs then the beliefs are studied and found to be true, wanting or in
>> need of
>> modifying.
> LOL now I shall nitpick (question of POV?) science is founded on theories.
> The difference is that theories have to face experiment, beliefs don't.
>
Close, but not quite. Science is based on theories that ***explain***
facts. Religions do the opposite, they present guesses (not the same as
theory), then wander around "looking" for facts that appear like they
support them, usually while ignoring ones that don't. This is why the
former can be tested, while the later can't. One *must* change when
confronted with different facts, and actively looks for things that can
"break" it, the other, tries real hard to go, "La la la la la!", with
its eyes and ears covered, until/unless it finds some fact that can be
shoehorned into the appearance of support for it. Sadly for them,
appearances matter not one bit.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:33:32 -0700, Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom>
wrote:
>Sadly for them, appearances matter not one bit.
Again I pick a nit :)
Appearance does mater he/she/it must look Caucasian.
Or am I being cynical?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> "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"?
>
Hmm. Where to start.. First thing, we started out thinking that cancer
was "one" single things, with "one" single trigger. Whoops! Its not. We
now know some are caused by infections, and we can, in at least one
case, vaccinate against "most" forms of it (obviously, a few forms of it
are triggered by genetic damage or other things). We know of *several*
mechanisms that can cause it, and have ideas about what can be done to
fix it, except that, since its caused by genetic anomalies, its proving
hard to come up with a delivery mechanism that will either "fix" or
"kill" only those cells effected, while preventing the body from
destroying the delivery mechanism. However, despite all these problems,
most cancers are, in the last 20 years, 90-100% survivable, with no
outward sign you had them, while 20+ years ago, they where probably more
like 1-50% survivable, and left the person permanently scared from them,
in many cases.
The real problem? How is the money actually spent. Something like 20%,
at least, of your $100 billion figure is spent on "awareness" campaigns,
which attempt to bring in more money, but waste huge amounts on stuff
that has jack to actually do with finding cures or treatments. Second
issue is, define cure? Sometimes cure doesn't mean "prevent it
happening", or, "fix it without surgery". Often, even in other "well
understood" fields, "cure" is still, "remove the source of the problem,
then treat them for anything left over, until your sure its all gone."
Only by applying a very narrow definition of cure do you get to claim
that no progress has been made.
Hmm. Reminds me of something a doctor said on a blog recently. He had a
patient that came in with a badly infected arm, some of the tissue
turning blue. He gave the guy a load of antibiotics to take, having
determined that it was an infection, and told him to come back in at a
later date. The guy did, and the pills had worked, leaving almost no
sign of the bite marks that had gotten infected. Being a liberal, and
dealing with a friend and patient that **loved** to babble on about how
much "better" everything was way back when, the doctor, having gotten
fed up at this point with it, stated, "You know, when I first started my
practice in 1954, I would have had to remove the entire arm, due to the
infection you had, and even then, there was a good chance you would have
died from the infection anyway. The next time you ramble on about how
much better the 'good old days' where, you might want to remember that."
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Patrick Elliott" <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote in message
news:48dd2921$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> >> The difficulty is you seem to be suggesting that we only do projects
when
> >> we know exactly
> > Not exactly, but reasonably sure that it may have applications. And
> > prioritize with benefits to humans in mind.
> Nearly every major discovery was a result of accident, or basic
> research, where the known outcome wasn't predictable,
No. Nearly every major discovery was as a result of hard work and planning.
> not "prioritizing
> with benefits to humans in mind". Ever heard of teflon?
Exceptions prove the rule. Only those discoveries which are "accidental"
make the news. You won't hear in the news scientists toiling for years in
the lab, incrementally discovering things.
Mad scientists, accidental discoveries... etc is a mickey mouse version of
real science.
> Another example?
No thank you. That you can come up with one or two anectodes does not make a
case (for you anyway). Go watch scientists working at a major research
centre. It's a well managed business as any, with plans, budgets, goals,
hard work.
> Modern die technology
You mean dye, right? However, let me jump on the "die technology". We have
been developing casting methodologies for millenia. It's all an incremental
business. And it's hard work. It's trial and error, theory... etc. Countless
technicians and scientists have worked on the process with the *express
intent* of improving the process. Next time you see an object of industrial
design, don't dismiss its realization as "accidental". It's a result of
focused development. Same for any technology, be it electronics, computers,
medical... etc. Don't buy into the Hollywood version of science and
technology.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
