Hacker News Reader

Comment by jocaal | Hacker News Reader

What actually happens is, smart people are isolated from the problems of the general population and work towards meaningless goals at the cost of the everyday tax payer doing unglamorous work to earn a living. Decoupling science from the state will also reduce the meaningless competition of academia that leads to the publish-or-perish and replication crises, because the people who will be doing it, will do it for the love of the game, regardless of social status and money.

If you want to live in this world, you have to trade your time and provide value to others. You shouldn't get a free pass because, just because you convinced yourself and the government that you're smarter than everyone else.

View on HN

This makes no sense.

"Decoupling science from the state" is just bullshit from "government icky, taxation is theft" morons.

No, governments should definitely fund scientific research. When it is public it is the only guarantee that it will benefit everyone. Scientific research done by private entities is kneecapped by their financial interests (and be very sure they will bury any advance that jeopardize their financial interests).

How are radio telescopes and mars rovers in my interest? How would you know what is in my interest? I worked for my money so the person in the best position to judge what is in my interest is me. I am sorry for you if that is such a hard concept to understand.

It would be great if we had line-item vetoes on our tax forms. However, we don't. You have to fund some things you don't like or agree with, and so do I, and so do the rest of the taxpayers.

That's just how taxes work. Like capitalism and democracy, taxes suck, but nobody has come up with adequate substitutes that check all the necessary boxes.

Why wouldn't I veto everything except the give me back my money tax? Now, I'm not actually ridiculously selfish asshole that doesn't think of others or the long term consequences of my choices, but it's a prisoners dilemma, with everybody else in your country, and defecting gives you money back. Cynically I don't think that'll work.

It wouldn't be a "Give money to anyone you like" kind of choice, but "Allocate money to these departments." Funding that you assign to one category would have to come out of another. Think basic research is a waste? Allocate less to NSF and more to foreign aid, or to something else that you prefer. Don't want to fund welfare? Move the money to defense, and so forth.

Obviously still open to gaming and abuse, but it's not as if the current system isn't.

You’re free to vote towards your goals, or move to countries which invest basically nothing in research. There’s plenty of them. I suspect you may not enjoy such great quality of life there.

In case it wasn’t a rhetorical question, they’re in your interest because through the process of building them we improve our understanding of the world, develop new technologies which the industrial system wouldn’t have backed, educate the next generation of engineers and scientists, and inspire the kids that will form the second next generation.

Private research already exists and works well in some fields, mine included. But public research is just as important since it can afford higher risk and longer scope. You can’t begin to count the startups that were created as spin-offs of university research groups.

Frankly, your particular interest is completely irrelevant.

Scientific research is of societal interest, even if your particular interest differ. The best you can do is vote for parties that promise to shut down scientific research, or find another group of likeminded morons and form such a party with them.

If you disagree with the concept of taxes, well, sucks to be you. May your desires never come to fruition, because life would be hell.

So you think we shouldn't try to understand the world around us?

Agree this reminds me of the level my Herman Hesse “The Glass Bead Game”. Academics and researchers have a moral duty to give back to the larger society that enables their endeavors .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Glass_Bead_Game

"Being linked to the state" doesn't always mean being bound by social status and money, but rather receiving support in terms of social status and money. For example, artist support, even if government support is contingent on "the work conforming to LGBT trends," is better than nothing. How can a scientist's passion for science remain connected to the 99% of the public who have no interest in and know nothing about science? As for whether it's a low-quality paper or genuine research, that depends entirely on the conscience and ethics of the practitioners; no policy direction, left or right, can solve this. Left-wing fabrication is plagiarism, right-wing fabrication becomes illegal fundraising and financial fraud. Right-wing fabrication is far more destructive and harmful.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com