On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 11:28:04PM -0400, Warnick, Walt wrote: > Anecdotal evidence abounds to show that basic research selected and funded > by the Federal government has produced enormous benefits. [...]
I am amazed to find here such a blatant example of the "What is seen and what is not seen" fallacy. The point is not whether government did some good. By that measure, the russians being richer in 1991 than in 1917, we could say that communism was a wonderful experience (please replace by whichever phenomenon you love to hate, that lasted long enough - absolute monarchy? slavery? protectionism? belief in a flat earth? some or some other official religion?). The fallacy is that you don't choose between the past and the future. You choose between several futures. Comparing the state of science in 1950 to the state of science in 1980, and saying "hey, government did great!" is an utter fallacy. What you must compare is the state of science in 1980 under some assumptions to the state of science in 1980 under some other assumptions - and then find which assumption is more favorable. But even then, science is not the only thing to consider so as to judge - and you must consider other factors, too. When comparing benefits, you must compare the cost - and time itself is part of the cost; it is a resource that could have been used in different ways. Said other wise: only choices matter. The only costs are opportunity costs, and so are the only benefits. > Determining an optimal level of funding for basic research is a problem that > has not, so far, yielded to analytic solution. Rather, setting levels of > research is an entirely political process. In recent years, NIH has been > growing by leaps and bounds. You speak like a technocrat: your discourse is full of anerisms, and false solutions to false problems. The emptiness of your discourse is directly tied to your statist point of view (see the origins of the word "statistics", e.g. in the recent book "Damn Lies and Statistics"). Statist economy is an intellectual fraud, and I'm afraid you're part of it. I thought this mailing-list was precisely about showing how the praxeological "economist" point of view applies to all fields of human action. I suppose it also shows how statist economists may invade just any field of knowledge, so as to further their sick memes. [ Fran�ois-Ren� �VB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] [ TUNES project for a Free Reflective Computing System | http://tunes.org ] There is no such thing as a "necessary evil". If it's necessary, then it cannot be evil, neither can it be good: it's a datum. -- Far�
