Thread: Lied to, already.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

I didn't make it political, I just pointed out that this science isn't "powered by business," it's used by business. That's great, and business is very good at using the results of science.

Now you're just splitting hairs for argument's sake. Potato, potatoe.

If your company is large enough, and lucky enough, then you have an R&D department. Which is nothing, if not science and engineering all wrapped up into one. But with the exception of the shuttle program, where the goal was to get to the moon, not sell Tang, then I would bet nearly every scientist out there who is developing something of worth with government funding, is doing so with the intent of making a product fit for public sale.

That is, at its heart, business. It's just in the initial phases. You don't HAVE a marketable product... yet. But Dr. Nocera isn't making this electrolyzer in the MIT labs just so he can put the thing on the shelf and move on to something else. He started a private company to make money off it. That's business Wicked. He's just using government funding, and the labs at MIT as his R&D department.

And guess what... I'm okay with that. So stop splitting hairs and trying to pick a fight.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

Now you're just splitting hairs for argument's sake. Potato, potatoe.

If your company is large enough, and lucky enough, then you have an R&D department. Which is nothing, if not science and engineering all wrapped up into one. But with the exception of the shuttle program, where the goal was to get to the moon, not sell Tang, then I would bet nearly every scientist out there who is developing something of worth with government funding, is doing so with the intent of making a product fit for public sale.

This is absolutely incorrect. The internet, early computing, all astronomy and astrophysics, ecology, most biology, are all primarily unprofitable. Even in industries that have a huge profit potential, the scientists are almost never motivated by profits. They're motivated by the goals of getting published, getting known, and finding the truth. The private companies like big pharma, they're certainly motivated by profits, but they're not generally the ones making major breakthroughs. Instead, they're taking existing projects the last few steps to profitability.

That is, at its heart, business. It's just in the initial phases. You don't HAVE a marketable product... yet. But Dr. Nocera isn't making this electrolyzer in the MIT labs just so he can put the thing on the shelf and move on to something else. He started a private company to make money off it. That's business Wicked. He's just using government funding, and the labs at MIT as his R&D department.

And guess what... I'm okay with that. So stop splitting hairs and trying to pick a fight.

The vast majority of scientists that I've worked with have been motivated by academic ambition, not a business venture. Several of them have gone on to start companies with their research, but none of them directed their research by profitability. I dont know Dr. Nocera any better than you do, so I can't tell you his motivations any better than you can.

Originally Posted by SourceSkills

That's your opinion and it is perfectly understandable given the current state of the world but science doesn't need money to exist and neither does the knowledge that comes from it.

That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Scientists need to eat, and must be paid. Tools need to be produced. Animals might need to be raised, or transport (as in the Mars rovers). Chemicals need to be synthesized, mined, transported, cleaned, purified, etc. Labs need to be lit, heated, provided with safety equipment.

Those things just exist just as the earth just exists or just as you exist. I don't remember anyone paying money (well as far as I know) for the human race to be created or for that matter the rest of the universe.

That's not science.

Money is a crude system we invented a long time ago to replace our even cruder version of barter and it worked for a while but it doesn't work anymore and the evidence of that surrounds you every day. So you see even though money in the current system makes it easier for you to discover new knowledge that knowledge isn't dependant on that. It's just there and all we need to do is find it.

Money, bartered goods, whatever. Science isn't free. Whether you're paying for your quantitative PCR machine with chickens and bushels of carrots or government promissory notes, you're going to pay.

Originally Posted by SourceSkills

in the world we live in everything is free. once again the sooner you realize that one the better off you will be. there is no reason to be wiping out humanity to accomplish that reformation. all that it requires is an open mind and the deprogramming the conditioning that you were and are still bombarded with every day.

I really like everything you´re saying. I don´t know if you have sound arguments for it and if it´s even possible because I´m not a scientist, engineer, agroindustrial engineer or the like.

What is free in the world we live in now? If I can´t realize that (I really don´t see it), I ask you, now, to please enlighten me.

Source, I gotta ask, but have you been watching Zeitgeist? I'm just wondering because your view reminds me so much of that movie.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

I love how he blames Obama for the Bush deficit he inherited. As if he could have fixed a trillion dollar deficit during the worst economic recession since the Great Depression in a month. So cute.

He said he could. It was all part of the change he talked about. We (well some of us) knew he was full of shit when he said it.