Convince me that the government should fund science

The research that contributed to the formation of the internet was conducted mostly by folks at MIT, and if you think that the university wouldn't have funded STEM research in the absence of federal grants you are retarded.

its better off in science than tyrone's welfare check

Thought: people come up with new ideas faster when they and the people paying them could potentially make a shit ton of money.
Other thought: unfireable public servants who spend other people's money and have no concern for quality don't use money efficiently.

Because if they didn't how else would be create data that lines up with my ideology?

A basic understanding of business relations and economics would tell you that innovation drives sales... or stagnates it. It is in a business' best interest to innovate and produce better quality products than its competators.

Relying on government funding for the most part provides no incentive to scientists to innovate other than "it's their job hurr durr"... it basically encourages non-productiveness.

>if you think that the university wouldn't have funded STEM research in the absence of federal grants you are retarded.
They would have significantly LESs money to fund STEM research.

Since the government changes ideology at least once a decade, that doesn't really hold up.

>the government changes ideology at least once a decade
What? Where do you live?

>t. never worked in research
Unless you've published research you shouldn't shoot your mouth off about something you know nothing about.

Not all research has an immediate practical use but is still arguably beneficial to mankind as a whole.

I can't see private companies investing in particle accelerators or super very big telescopes, for instance.

When the government funds science, it's casting a wider net, so to speak. It gives scientists the chance to study things private industry would never bother with, yet still has a benefit.

Science has the widest benefit when shared freely. Being able to test and build upon others' research is one of the core tenets of science. Private research has a profit motive to keep its results private, at odds with this philosophy. Publicly funded science has a motive to keep its information shared freely, in order to prove to its investors (taxpayers) that research is being done.

If you take the ancap moral absolutist stance then there is no argument for government science except maybe for military.

Oh no, you mean the budget is actually directly related the amount of resources that people are willing to voluntarily forfeit? Its not like pretending that the country is wealthier than it really is by spending money that doesn't exist has gotten us into trouble in the past...

hey maybe making assumption about people on a website where everyone is completely anonymous actually makes zero sense just a thought thanks bye

This thread has seriously made me lose respect for this board. No other board on this website is this partisian or ignorant. It's like I'm literally on reddit or something.

Nobody cares about your opinion faggot.

Have you published research? Did you conduct your research through a private or public association? Based on your reply to those specific comments I would probably assume you are an advocate for publicly funded research/have done so yourself.

Don't shoot your mouth off about something you know nothing about.

in the broader scale and outside your overly protected little bubble of knowledge, it's fairly well established that privately funded research tends to excel the most. Some of the greatest advancements in technology have been exclusively if not majorly funded by private organsations.

You don't need to fucking publish research to know how the sector works.

>A basic understanding of business relations and economics would tell you that innovation drives sales
Yes, but investors hate R&D. It's understandable why: you are sinking huge sums of money into ventures which will probably fail to produce a sellable product. Science is not about productivity; scientists rarely set out to discover or create something they can sell. They're discoveries only become products later, usually by a third party applying the discovery.

>hur dur everybody doesn't hold the same opinions as me, they must be ignorant

How else are smaller companies meant to compete if they just do the same thing as everybody else ? The same goes for larger companies ? You can find innovation nearly everywhere.

Investors are natural risktakers, it's fair to say that alot of investment may go into already well established products and services, but they also rush to products that are on the rise, and show the most proven potential.. that's how they make money. Though I agree that investors hate any new innovations that haven't proven themselves in the market.

The US of A, where the current party in power wants to defund climate research because of ideology/cronyism.

I just spotted the newfag.

The problem isn't that you have a different opinion, it's that you have no opinions, you just believe whatever is popular.

>How else are smaller companies meant to compete if they just do the same thing as everybody else ?
A new ad campaign can do wonders of a stale idea. There are any number of ways a company can innovate that are cheaper than actual science.

Trump isn't in power and isn't an ideologue and it's only your opinion that he's a crony.

I consider myself a neoliberalist and slightly libertarian,

I'd hardly consider that "popular" by today's standard.

>Hurrr newfag durrrr
You know how I know YOU'RE new?

This.

If the idea is stale people will catch on and the product will ultimately fail. Better products will prevail in return. Again, it is in the companies best interest to innovate in the long run, or at the least keep up with current trends.

If we deregulated nuclear energy and if everyone could stop being a fucking baby about the spooky scary radiation non-threat then we wouldn't need to be here talking about climate change. But since everyone is terrified of shit they know nothing about, now we have to deal with paying Saudi Arabia shitloads of money and weapons and the fucking ice caps are melting great good job government

This isn't /pol/. Saying things that are obviously wrong doesn't fly here.

wew, you are triggered over 9000

This

If you're too stupid to not understand the relationship between commercialism and industrialism you're too stupid to be browsing a science and math board.

>Investors are natural risktakers
lolno

Stop spouting memes. If you've been at all paying attention to the business landscape over the last two decades, you would know that the only thing that matters to shareholders is liquidating long term viability (e.g. new product lines and R&D) in order to guarantee the safety of short term returns. That's a really romantic picture you've painted of business, but it's not one that's based in reality.

wow cool meme does your narwhal le bacon as well? ,)

ebin

u jelly?

That's fair, I'll agree with that

Though liquidating R&D in itself is encouring innovation, and taking a risk, it's impossible to know whether the research will even pay off.

Ya i wish i knew le oldfag memes like you do, know what this one means?

Research is a high risk, high reward situation. The private sector isn't to keen at pouring large sums of money into projects that may fail. Industry may work with applied science, but pure science is too risky for a company to do, and applied science is built off pure science. Therefore, relying on industry is shooting yourself in the foot.

Or, more simply put, what company is going to build a particle accelerator?

>Or, more simply put, what company is going to build a particle accelerator?
A particle accelerator company

That le meme is too le recent for me.

>If the idea is stale people will catch on and the product will ultimately fail.
Heh, yeah, sure thing kid.
>Again, it is in the companies best interest to innovate
Again, innovation can mean many different things, and most of them are cheaper than actual science. Put a racing stripe on your phone and put it in the hands of a popular socialite: that's innovation. Contract your factory jobs to countries where people will work an 18 hour day for a crust of bread, allowing you to sell your products cheaper: that's innovation. Use your profits to buy back outstanding stock and inflate your share prices: that's innovation. Build a massive super collider that will allow you to test whether there are new physics that might be enable you to build smaller integrate circuits one day: that's innovation, but it's several orders of magnitude more expensive than the others and the ROI is extremely uncertain and probably null.
> in the long run
And here is another problem: the long run doesn't matter. Who knows where you'll be in 20 years; what you put on your balance sheet at the end of the quarter is what matters.

Hey OP, here's an interactive website dedicated to pointing out your faggotry:

ncase.me/fireflies/

>be government
>have tax dollars
>need to innovate to stay viable
>research often makes very little monetary profit if any through intellectual property
>as such research would die on the free market
>decide to spend money to prevent this, thus keeping your country economically and technologically viable
There. Free market fetishists get off my board

yes libertarians are literally retarded, now you know

nice argument there retard.

some faggot who can't understand the difference between investing and spending money you don't have is lecturing people on economics, that's rich

It's more efficient in the short run, for profit margins. Forcing people to pay for science makes science free from the constraints of market demands.

Oh man that was good.

>I crave so much material comfort and despise so much pains that I choose to threaten people to give me part of their money while claiming ti is for their own good and I punish anybody who disagree with me and do not give me their money

>idle speculation
Real fucking scientific there m8

>I'd like to live in a cave as a truly free individual
go ahead then

If you love pain and freedom so much those threats would have no power over you.

>posting on the internet

Can I please have my tax back, the money that was wasted on your schooling?

WEW LAD
E
WEW LAD

L
A
D

If money is the only driving force in science, then nothing new and exotic phenomena will be discovered.

"Both sides" in US politics will defend commodification of labor, private ownership of the means of production, and extraction of surplus labor value until the last man. They don't exactly "change ideology" every 2.5 election cycles; they clearly stay liberal

OP here. I have about 15 publications and a tenure track job. Of course I benefit personally from the fact that the government funds science and math.

But the fact that I am taking advantage of the way the system currently works is not evidence that it ought to work this way. And I'm not so selfish and short sighted that I'm not willing to question it.

Just because it doesn't waffle between extremes doesn't mean the ideology doesn't change.

Social liberalism and conservative liberalism are the same ideology though, when you get right down to it. The parties' differing stances on the tactical questions of class rule are hardly "ideological differences," they're just details.

Nice LARP. Post proof or GTFO.

I would, but I would be coerced with force to come back to (((society))) if anyone found me

>coerced
Bad prole, that cave is private property!

positive externality

/thread

>propertarian posts stirner
You lost before the discussion began

suck my dick, I'm not doxxing myself.

You either don't believe that real researchers ever post on Veeky Forums (which would seem to indicate that you're probably not a researcher yourself and assume we're all like you) or you assume that everyone who does research believes their own work should be funded by any means necessary.

Not everyone is a selfish whiny piggot. Some of us would be willing to accept less funding if it's fair.

>I do big famous thing
>prove it pls
>NO FUCK YOU REEEE BRAINLET REEEE

>having publications and a job make you famous
t. undergrad