Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated - What is Big Science?
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 General Matters
 Big Science and Big Government
 What is Big Science?
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 2

Larry Burford

USA
2220 Posts

Posted - 13 Dec 2010 :  14:39:38  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
We probably all have a pretty good idea of the answer to this question. For example, I know for sure I do, and I'm pretty sure Stoat does.

And I'm pretty sure that my answer and Stoat's answer are close enough that we can talk about Big Science without immediatly misunderstanding each other. I am sure, however, that my answer and his are not identical.

Each of the rest of us are also going to have answers that are not identical. We can either ignore these (not necessarily) small differences in the way we think about Big Science, or we can try to come up with a common definition. (And then try to always use it.)

We do not necessarily have to do this before we begin discussing things. But we ought to keep in mind that this problem exists, and work on it from time to time. Especially when we perceive a problem elsewhere that might be the result of conflicting ideas about what Big Science is.

Thoughts about this are solicited.

Regards,
LB

Larry Burford

USA
2220 Posts

Posted - 13 Dec 2010 :  15:07:02  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Here is a first pass at a a high level definition of Big Science. More detail is probably desireable, but for now I want to keep things simple. If you disagree, don't be shy.

Big Science is science that has become big because a very large percentage of the funding is funneled through one organization, our government.

===

To be sure, there are a number of sub units within the government that have proximate control over specific sub units of science. But ultimately a lot of the money that is spent on science is controlled, at least indirectly, by politicians in Washington DC.

Many of the alternate funding sources are indirectly influenced by the government, because of tax policy that says some private spending is deductable and some is not.

I see this level of control that politicians have over what is or is not "official" science as a bad thing. IOW, suppose that we had a Constitutional doctrine of "separation of science and state", similar to the doctrine of separation of church and state. There could then be no state sponsored scientific establishment such as we have now. In such a world, Joe Keller's search for Babarosa might very well have taken a different path.

And Tom's attempts to explore alternatives to BB, QM and Einsteinian Relativity might also have worked out differently.

There would have been many diverse minds making the spending decisions, instead of the smaller number of less diverse minds we actually have. It is likely that most of this hypothetical hord of diverse minds I envision would still take one look at scientific mavericks like Tom and Joe (and you and me) and just chucle.

But not all of them would. I think the odds would improve in our favor. And in an America that had good science instead of Big Science, we would also necessarily have good government instead of Big Government. And that means a lot more of us would be wealthy enough to be patrons of art and science. Making the odds even better.



Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 14 Dec 2010 :  14:09:52  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
My first thought on this, is that I would say State rather than Government.

I would like to see Big Science embrace it's rights and duties as the "Fifth Estate." At the moment I think it plays the game of wanting its cake and eating it.
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2220 Posts

Posted - 14 Dec 2010 :  17:16:52  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Some definitions of 'state':

  • the territory occupied by one of the constituent administrative districts of a nation

  • the group of people comprising the government of a sovereign state

  • a politically organized body of people under a single government

  • country: the territory occupied by a nation

  • A state is a set of institutions that possess the authority to make the rules that govern the people in one or more societies, having internal and external sovereignty over a definite territory. ...


  • (ADDITIOMAL DEFS THAT ARE NOT RELATED TO OUR INTENDED USE)



  • the way something is with respect to its main attributes; "the current state of knowledge"; "his state of health"; "in a weak financial state"

  • state of matter: (chemistry) the three traditional states of matter are solids (fixed shape and volume) and liquids (fixed volume and shaped by the container) and gases (filling the container); "the solid state of water is called ice"

  • express in words; "He said that he wanted to marry her"; "tell me what is bothering you"; "state your opinion"; "state your name"

  • a state of depression or agitation; "he was in such a state you just couldn't reason with him"

  • submit: put before; "I submit to you that the accused is guilty"

  • express: indicate through a symbol, formula, etc.; "Can you express this distance in kilometers?"

  • Department of State: the federal department in the United States that sets and maintains foreign policies; "the Department of State was created in 1789"


Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2220 Posts

Posted - 14 Dec 2010 :  17:28:50  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Some definitions of 'government'

  • the organization that is the governing authority of a political unit

  • the system or form by which a community or other political unit is governed; "tyrannical government"

    • Most of these definitions had examples of use following them that I removed. I left this one in because I personally feel these two words are redundant, and that fact ought to be mentioned more often that it is.

  • A government is the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises its authority, controls and administers public policy, and directs and controls the actions of its members or subjects.

  • The body with the power to make and/or enforce laws for a country, land area, people, or organization

  • A group of people who hold a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a given territory

  • The state and its administration viewed as the ruling political power

  • ... is the organ who assumes the authority for legislate new codes and their execution.

  • An organized entity that, in addition to having governmental character, has sufficient discretion in the management of its own affairs to distinguish it as separate from the administrative structure of any other governmental unit. See also Population of Interest.



  • ADDITIONl DEFS THAT DO NOT FIT OUR INTENDED USE



  • politics: the study of government of states and other political units

  • Worksites affiliated with local, state, or federal government (can include but is not limited to public service agencies, police, firefighters, military, etc).

  • The Government was a new wave, art punk band, primraily active in Toronto during the 1979-1981 period.

  • In grammar and theoretical linguistics, government refers to the relationship between a word and its dependents. There is a traditional notion of government, and a highly specialized definition used in some generative models of syntax.

  • The Government of Ireland (Rialtas na hireann ) is the cabinet that exercises executive authority in Ireland. The Government is headed by a prime minister called the Taoiseach, and a deputy prime minister called the Tnaiste. ...

  • Government Street is the name given to U.S. Route 90 and portions of U.S. Route 98 within the city limits of Mobile, Alabama. It is known as Government Street east of Pinehill Drive and as Government Boulevard west of Pinehill Drive. ...

  • On the study of political science the executive branch of government has sole authority and responsibility for the daily administration of the state bureaucracy. The division of power into separate branches of government is central to the republican idea of the separation of powers .

  • The Royal Thai Government or the Government of Thailand (#3619;#3633;#3600;#3610;#3634;#3621;#3652;#3607;#3618;) is the unitary government of the Kingdom of Thailand. Thailand since 1932 has been a constitutional monarchy under a parliamentary democratic system. ...

  • governmental - relating to or dealing with the affairs or structure of government or politics or the state; "governmental policy"; "public confidence and governmental morale"


Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2220 Posts

Posted - 14 Dec 2010 :  17:38:06  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
These two posts still need some editing and pruning. I'll get to that as time permits

I left in the additional defs just because English is amazing in the number of multiple definitions it has for most words. I find this aspect of my native tongue to be fascinating. I know all languages do this, but I have heard that English is worst (or best).

After looking at both lists for a few minutes, I see no obvious reason to favor 'government' over 'state' in our discussion. Why don't we start off agreeing to treat them as synonyms? And I guess we should agree to keep this question in mind, and revisit it whenever a problem comes up that might be resolved by not treating them as synonyms.

===

In hind sight, I think I should have used the term 'federal government' instead of 'government'. To remove a little ambiguity from my definition and discussion.

LB
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 20 Dec 2010 :  06:30:36  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I've left this a little while, to see what sort of response there'd be. That and of course the fact that I'm bone idle and wanted others to do the work. It is a lot of work, I would say that's it's a book, and a hefty one at that. I have been looking at Kant and Hegel on political philosophy, not for the faint hearted I'm afraid.

To keep this short, I would say that what we need to look at is the corporation and that arm of the state which deals in policing. Now it might sound strange that Kant and Hegel were talking about corporations but they are talking about groups of individuals, within civil society, who come together in the pursuit of a common interest. Policing will sound strange as well but here we are talking about the historical development of the state with regard to the "unfolding" of reason. The state policing apparatus evolves to meet the needs of recognition of individual rights. The rights of the individual and corporation, to follow their legitimate needs, in civil society, will come into conflict. That section/s of the state apparatus that deals in the policing of civil society is expressly forbidden to be "political." In fact a major role is to be the defense of civil society against vested political interests. Of course this policing role does deal with actual criminality but the bulk of the state apparatus is involved in arbitrating legitimate conflicts of interest.

Again, of course, this doesn't stop those state functions from "dabbling" in politics but the particular vice suffered from is primarily that of the bureaucratic mind set. A mind set that corporations also suffer from, and we should be aware that the policing role of the state deals primarily with corporations and only abstractedly, if at all, with the individual in civil society.

Okay, we did have a major crisis in physics, and it coincided with a major crisis in global society. Einstein's relativity was chosen against what I think we should call Lorentz, Poincare, Riemann relativity. It has been mentioned in many articles that Einstein's genius lay in resolving theoretical conflicts. In other words, solutions that were most likely to be grasped by those given to corporate group think. These people are not stupid, evil, lacking in imagination, or even hostile to new thinking. Their first priority will always be to keeping a steady ship. What's insidious is that it can turn all rather nasty, yet they are safe in the knowledge of their group reasonableness.

Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 20 Dec 2010 :  07:23:11  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
On that point about if the American founding fathers had separated state and science. These people were the backbone of the British state in North America. It's certain that the lack of representation of the colonial state, was of primary interest to american civil society, it was less so to the founding fathers. More important to them was the weakness of the British state. A strong reasonable state would protect against political caprice. The separation of church and "reasonable" state was a must. The separation of state and science would have been a disaster. For one thing they were all men of reason. Note though that they were talking about the apparatus of state in that policing, and therefore politically neutral aspect. The state's role in protecting civil society from vested interests of any sort. if for example, catholics wanted their own political party, the state would defend that right but the state itself could never become Catholic even if the executive arm was ran by them.

I don't think we should play the "what if" game at all. it's a definite no no in the field of history, for very good reasons. The secondary point is that it could give political ammunition to the likes of the tea-party groupings. The State is as complex as society is. Those people who want to dismantle it in accord with some simplistic political world view are positively dangerous.
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2220 Posts

Posted - 20 Dec 2010 :  10:40:10  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
[Stoat] "Those people who want to dismantle it in accord with some simplistic political world view are positively dangerous."

On the other forums we have the rule that you can attack the message but not the messenger. Although this forum is a little different from the others (in that the subject matter will most often be indirectly related to science in general, and to astronomy and cosmlogy in particular) it seems to me that we need to have a similar rule here.

The quoted statement above attacks a messenger, rather than a message from that messenger. In this case the messenger is a third party, rather than someone posting here. But the principle is the same.

And besides, you have made your attack without attempting to offer any evidence. If we are even going to pretend that this is a scientific discussion, that should be a no-no. (Another rule, perhaps?)

It seems to me that politically active groups and individuals deliver plenty of specific messages. If you were to pick one from this messenger, do you think you could still make your point? Source and context will be important because the audience will use them to judge your credibility.

Switching from an attack on a messenger to an attack on his message is work. If you shoot from the hip you most often just end up looking foolish. Or sliding back into the ad-hominem. This is why I advised us in an earliier post to think before posting.

===

Never the less, it is an interesting point. If you can fix it up according to the general rule it might well be the source of some good discussions.

LB
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2220 Posts

Posted - 20 Dec 2010 :  11:20:15  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Stoat,

We are blazing a new trail here, so don't worry about getting things perfect. Take your best shot and we will talk about it. This is going to be a learning process for me as well.

LB
Go to Top of Page

jrbartilet

Philippines
1 Posts

Posted - 11 Mar 2011 :  10:44:21  Show Profile  Visit jrbartilet's Homepage  Send jrbartilet a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
First of all, thanks for giving me the opportunity to contribute a topic and ideas in your good website. every message that we read in any topic can gives us possitive or negative effect in our life. we are the boss of our self, so we can choose the possitive one. but the important is that the intension and effort to provide the best from us and contributes the present and futuristic research for the sake of mankind. while,
Go to Top of Page

Solar Patroller

Canada
62 Posts

Posted - 07 Jun 2011 :  13:40:23  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Calling TVF and the members of MetaResearch "kooks" is an ad hominem attack even if 1 includes oneself in it. The kooks are the reactionary, abusive, orthodox skeptics. Obviously, Mr. Burford and the members of MetaResearch are not in that number. Also, an attack against a group is not ad hominem.

I think in this question we should keep in mind the secret society factor. Secret societies, after all, founded Canada and the US and control government, so they control science.

I'm not sure the Tea Party movement wants to dismantle government, but it is the government that is dangerous because it is run by secret societies.
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2220 Posts

Posted - 08 Aug 2011 :  09:20:50  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
[Solar Patroller] "Calling TVF and the members of MetaResearch "kooks" is an ad hominem attack even if 1 includes oneself in it"

I suppose you have a point. I've been using the k-word on us for a while now. Tom never objected, but then he is one of the most tolerant persons I've ever known.

On the one hand, blacks who use the n-word on each other are not considered racist. We (people in general) seem to make exceptions of this sort, in at least some cases.

But on the other hand, as I reflect on these things, I see that I have less respect for blacks that take advantage of such exception-granting. I know of others (not all white) that respond similarly.

So, by analogy, I suspect that others will have less respect for me if I do the same in relation to our group.

Thanks for opening my eyes on this issue. I believe I am the only one among us that has referred to us as kooks. I hope it stays that way, and I plan to stop.

Regards,
LB
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2220 Posts

Posted - 08 Aug 2011 :  16:41:54  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
[Solar Patroller] "I'm not sure the Tea Party movement wants to dismantle government, ... "

My research suggests that the goal of the various Tea Party and related groups is to reduce the size and scope of government, not dismantle it. To those among us who believe that only government can solve problems - and therefore that bigger government is the very definition of better government - reducing it in size is exactly the same as dismantling it.

This is the classic collectivism-versus-individualism battle. Supporters of each camp have historically been no more than ten to fifteen percent of the population, with the remainder of the population being either either moderates or independents.

===

Moderates, for the most part, do not vote. (Even in recent tightly contested elections in the USA, non-voters have been well over 40 % of those elegible.) They tend to poorly inform themselves about the issues, so it takes very little effort for them to convince themselves to stay home on election day.

Independents, for the most part, do vote. But they split their votes, and never vote straight party. It is not unusual for them to support independent candiates or third party candidates. They tend to be p*ss*d at both the Ds and the Rs here in the USA. It takes a lot to keep an independent from voting, but on average the group usually ends up going both ways in fairly even numbers. It is only when circumsatnces become dire that their balance goes decisively to one side or the other. It looks like we may be entering such circumstances.

The smallest group of Tea Party supporters comes from the liberal/progressive leaning groups. No surprise here, since these groups tend to be the ones that believe in big government.
    Liberals SAY they favor freedom, and they believe themselves when they say this. But there is no way you can use the government to prevent large numbers of consenting adults from doing things you dislike
    • selling things at a price you and another consenting adult agree on
    • hiring people you do like, not hiring people you don't like
    • working for someone you do like, not working for someone you don't like
    • etc.
    without building a really big government. And really big governments tend to suppress freedom.

    Non-government (IOW, non-coercive) methods of altering these behaviors would be fine with me, but the people in this group never seem to think that way.


The second largest group of Tea Party supporters comes from the ranks of the independents.
    No surprise here. As an independent myself I find the Tea Parties a mostly refreshing change in the political landscape. But like most independents I can find problems in any organization. The Tea Parties are good, but not perfect. I suppose that perfection is never going to be an option.

    If you are rational, you have to be willing to let other people make a few mistakes. Hopefully, they will return the favor.


Most Tea Party supporters have come from conservative leaning groups. Hmmm, more conservatives than independents. I find this a little odd, because the social side of conservatism relies on certain big government mechanisms. (It does not have to, but it always has.) This means that social conservatism is **NOT** a Tea Party value.
    Conservatives SAY they favor freedom, and they believe themselves when they say this. But there is no way you can use the government to prevent large numbers of consenting adults from doing things you dislike
    • betting on sports, or betting on cards, or whatever else you might want to bet on
    • having sex with whichever consenting adult you choose
    • with or without paying for it
    • etc.
    without building a really big government. And really big governments tend to suppress freedom.

    Non-government (IOW, non-coercive) methods of altering these behaviors would be fine with me, but the people in this group never seem to think that way.


Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2220 Posts

Posted - 08 Aug 2011 :  16:42:10  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
[Solar Patroller] " ... but it is the government that is dangerous because it is run by secret societies."

I've always been very resistant to the idea of secret conspiracies. For the most part they seem to do what they do right out in the open. They write about it a lot, and they speak about it a lot. (Remember Mine Kampf?) Us normal people just don't take them seriously, until it is too late.

Once they become politicians, of course, then they like to keep the voter in the dark. We hear a lot about government transparency these days. The thing that amazes me is that we ever allowed any politician to do anything that was not totally documented, recorded, and witnessed. What the h*ll were we thinking?

===

Yes, government really is dangerous. It is the one institution men have created that is legally allowed to accomplish its goals by initiating physical force. In each country on this planet, there is one governmet (sometimes with sub-units). And that one government claims and jealously protects its monopoly on the initial use of force.

That has got to be dangerous, in anyone's book. (Origin of the term "necessary evil"? If not, it ought to be.) Most governments use their monopoly-on-force to harm their politicial enemies. If the power structure changes, those on the inside can become those on the outside in an instant.

And that can suck.
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2220 Posts

Posted - 15 Aug 2011 :  10:44:24  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Solar Patroller,

I my reply above I basically agreed with you that government is dangerous. I'd like to add that, IMO, the bigger it is the more potential there is for this danger to manifest itself in some sort of anti-citizen action. But ...

... we do seem to need some few things from government. And that need exists at all levels.
  • Not because some things can't be done without government.

    • The government provides NO service that cannot also be provided privately.

  • And not because these few things can be done more efficiently using the tool of government.

    • Much has been made of the government's ability to do things more efficiently than private business, because government does not have to make a profit.

    • This sounds great in theory, but I'm still looking for a real world example of it.

    • I suspect that a few examples do exist. (Even a blind squirrel can find an occasional acorn.)

    • But there are so many counter examples one can see without exerting any effort at all, it seems like a waste to spend a lot of effort looking for the few exceptions.


  • We need it because we think we do. It is not a rational thing, it is an emotional thing.

    • I'm just as succeptable as anyone else to this.

    • I know that private roads are more efficient than public roads. But I have "thing" about public roads, so I'm willing to put up with the pot holes that take forever to fix because the greedy politicians are spending my road use taxes on their re-election instead of the roads.

    • It makes no sense, even to me. But there it is.


And of course, once we have government it begins to grow. OK so far - as a society grows, any government it establishes should grow with it. But soon government begins to grow faster than the society that created it.

And like a cancer, it will eventually kill its host if a way to stop that excess growth is not found.

But well before it kills us, it begins to screw us up. The government becomes newly involved here, then newly involved there. There are always "good reasons" put forward for each new involvment, So we allow them to spend some more money.

But we rarely look back and ask "How did that other thing work out? It was supposed to fix 'Problem X', and then be dismantled. My senator promissed."

And we never seem to stop and ask "Before we use force on ourselves again, what other tools are available?"

This is where my concern about Big Science comes from.

Regards,
LB

Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
957 Posts

Posted - 05 Sep 2011 :  12:07:37  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
It occurs to me that when the government funds science, it basically is paying a million mediocrities to stand in line. To stand in line in front of someone like, say, Edison or Tesla.
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2220 Posts

Posted - 09 Sep 2011 :  10:46:56  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
This is only part of the problem. But yes, it's a good way to think about it. The more money we (as a group) waste on mediocrities, the less we have to support non-mediocrities like Einstein and Tesla. Or Van Flandern and Keller.

(HISTORICAL NOTE - Einstein and Tesla were active at a time before Big Science. Van Flandern and Keller came after. Some interesting "what if" questions could asked here. Are there any would-be science fiction authors out there in audience land?)

Of course no system can be perfect, and mediocrities are going to receive funding under all possible alternative (including private) funding schemes. So what is the difference?

When governments (IOW politicians) decide who gets nearly 100% of the grants (and therefore who does not), the decisions are always colored by political factors. This does not always crowd out scientific factors, but usually it does relegate the scientific to a lesser role relative to the political. The more this crowding happens the lower the odds that the result will be good science.

Mediocrities are more willing to "cook the books" in order to make the grant approver happy. So when politics is a big factor, mediocrities get more of the available money, non-mediocrities get less of it.

Under some conditions, the political can totally replace the scientific in grant allocation.
Go to Top of Page

shando

Canada
208 Posts

Posted - 09 Sep 2011 :  14:38:06  Show Profile  Visit shando's Homepage  Reply with Quote
>When governments (IOW politicians) decide who gets nearly 100% of the grants ...

Is it really the politicians making the decisions? I get the impression that it is the "scientific politicians" (ie: the members of the various granting bodies within the governmental bureaucracies) who make the decisions after due "peer review". Of course, these "scientific politicians" are heavily invested in the current paradigm, and the outliers are effectively shut off from support by public funding. IMHO this is a systemic flaw that significantly slows scientific progress.
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2220 Posts

Posted - 12 Sep 2011 :  11:56:13  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
[shando] "I get the impression that it is the 'scientific politicians' (ie: the members of the various granting bodies within the governmental bureaucracies) who make the decisions after due 'peer review'."

This is more or less the way I see it.

[shando] " ... these 'scientific politicians' are heavily invested in the current paradigm, and the outliers are effectively shut off from support by public funding."

And this gets us back to my observation that political factors frequently crowd out scientific factors when the deciders are politicians. Scientific politicians are ... politicians.

It's not that they can-not make decisions that are good for the advancement of science. It's just that they do-not.

This is similar to the observation that governments never do anything that creates wealth. It's not that they can-not, it's just that they do-not.

I believe there are a few exceptions that one might point to. Their rarity only supports my point. Wasting resources is not their goal. Neither is conserving resources. To politicians all resources are endless. All they have to do is raise the tax rate or raise the spending limit, which makes all problems go away, and they can return to the one thing they really enjoy. Controlling someone else's behavior.

I've always been puzzled by this desire to control. Perhaps the following is part of the explanation.

    There is a sub-genre within the porno industry known as BDSM (bondage, discipline, sadism, masochism). It is primarily a male thing, but to my surprise about a fourth of the people active here are women. These active participants divide themselves into two basic groups - Doms and Subs (dominants and submissives). These various labels are more or less self explanatory, and I will not go into any more detail. Look it up if you want to. The internet is great, isn't it? [*]

      Did you hear the one about the masochist and the sadist?. The masochist says to the sadist "Beat me." And the sadist says "No."

    But most porn is much more ... normal? Just your run of the mill boy-girl sex. No whips or hand cuffs, no slaves and masters, etc. The only thing about it that is controversial is the explicitness. And that explicitness makes a lot of us very uncomfortable.

    ===

    My point? Out here in the physical world people have these same ... proclivities.

    Most of us are normal. We don't want to be a slave, and we don't want to be a slave master. We just want to live our lives and be left alone. Our main goal is to build a bright shiny future for ourselves, and for those we love. It is a happy accident that, in the process of doing this for oursleves we also enrich the lives of innocent bystanders. They do not coompensate us for this gift. At least not explicitly. But if they are also among the normal they will also do things for themselves that accidently benefit others. And so on. Eventually the circle closes, and someone does something that accidently benefits the first guy.

    But a few of us DO want to be slave masters. Not sexually, but politically. These people become politicans. Or go to work for a politician.

    And a surprising number of us DO want to be slaves. Not sexually, but politically. These people go on the dole, in one way or another. A few people on the dole are there for reasons beyond their control. But these few individuals manage to find a way to get back on their feet, and are soon off the dole. Many never try. They are content to do as their masters demand, in excange for a "guaranteed" subsistence.

    Some (many?) corporations also "go on the dole", and become slaves. We know them as cronies. They get special favors (fat contracts, regulatory relief, etc) in exchange for supporting their master during an election.

But my real point is, all of this is the foundation on which Big Science is built.

[shando] " ...this is a systemic flaw ... "

Yes.


[*] I guess this discussion would not be complete without mentioning that a few people have taken this master/slave thing outside of the world of fantasy. Slavery (real, actual bought and sold people) is still alive and well in the 21st century. Politicians and their cronies are at the front of this disgusting side of humanity.
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2220 Posts

Posted - 13 Sep 2011 :  13:17:45  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
[stoat from 14 Dec 2010-14:09:52] "I would like to see Big Science embrace it's rights and duties as the 'Fifth Estate'."

From time to time I go back and re-read a thread from start to finish. Sometimes I find something that I either missed the first time, or that I now find interesting where I did not find it intersting before. For example, the quote above from nearly a year ago.

Stoat - would you be willing to go into a little detail about what you mean by 'rights' and 'duties' in the context of your comment?

As a side bar, do you have any quibbles about my proposed definition of Big Science? Because if you do, we should probably first try to minimize such differences.

At the very least we should be aware that a difference of opinion exists.

Regards,
LB

Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated © © 2002-? Meta Research Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 2.86 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.03