A different kind of science denial

[realibrad]

Elon Musk is an exception to the general rule. He's an eccentric billionaire who is also a kind of techno-idealist and he doesn't necessarily mind spending some of his money for what he deems to be the public good.

But you didn't frame your statement in terms of Musk. You made a more general comment. In general, private enterprise is concerned with very little other than profit, so private enterprise will only solve problems in the general public interest when there happens to be a convergence of public interest and profit motive, which isn't all that often.

Thats not really true either. To be fair, I grew up in the Bay Area of CA, so companies often did charity.

 

[Jhhnn]

Sure, that is history. Its also true that religion was a driver of science. I'm more than happy science is now split from religion.

That's hardly true. Galileo came close to being roasted alive.

 

[Jhhnn]

Thats not really true either. To be fair, I grew up in the Bay Area of CA, so companies often did charity.

Only as a small % of profit. Andrew Carnegie was one of a kind.

 

[woolfe9998]

Thats not really true either. To be fair, I grew up in the Bay Area of CA, so companies often did charity.

Sure, most companies will give some money to charity, mainly for PR reasons. This doesn't get you to where you can take government out of the equation because the vast majority of everything for profit companies do is...for profit.

 

[realibrad]

That's hardly true. Galileo came close to being roasted alive.

Just because Galielo was attacked does not in any way disprove that religion at one time was a driver of science.

 

[pmv]

Thats not really true either. To be fair, I grew up in the Bay Area of CA, so companies often did charity.

I'm not a fan of charity as such in any case - a lot of charities are quite dodgy and people who work for them often have questionable motives. It's a poor basis for providing services.

I could cite the current scandal with Oxfam and sexual misbehaviour, but, actually, when it comes to _international_ aid it's a more complicated problem as there is no global state to step in, and state-based foreign aid is as prone to corruption and abuse as is the private charity sector. But for domestic concerns, I'm not very keen on charities. Some of them are just political lobby groups for the rich.

But it's also the case that 'new' capitalists, particularly the high-tech types, tend to be much less inclined towards it than were their predecessors. Bill Gates is an exception and partly because his (old school) dad shamed him into it.

 

[pmv]

Just because Galielo was attacked does not in any way disprove that religion at one time was a driver of science.

A rare moment in which I agree with you. Religion kind-of morphed into science. Or science is a sort of mutant offspring of religion.

 

[sandorski]

Sure, that is history. Its also true that religion was a driver of science. I'm more than happy science is now split from religion.

I'm speaking towards the general idea that Markets are always better. They are not, but they have their benefits and are better in certain things.

 

[Amused]

A rare moment in which I agree with you. Religion kind-of morphed into science. Or science is a sort of mutant offspring of religion.

Um, no. Science is not an offshoot of, nor in any way related to religion. Science is exactly the opposite of religion.

 

[Amused]

Its also true that religion was a driver of science.

Examples?

 

[sandorski]

A rare moment in which I agree with you. Religion kind-of morphed into science.

"Morphed"? No, it wasn't a "Driver" either. At best it protected some ancient science and performed some. Early scientists of the last handful of centuries were often religiously motivated to scientifically confirm what they already believed, but that's a whole different thing than "Driving" science.

 

[realibrad]

I'm not a fan of charity as such in any case - a lot of charities are quite dodgy and people who work for them often have questionable motives. It's a poor basis for providing services.

I could cite the current scandal with Oxfam and sexual misbehaviour, but, actually, when it comes to _international_ aid it's a more complicated problem as there is no global state to step in, and state-based foreign aid is as prone to corruption and abuse as is the private charity sector. But for domestic concerns, I'm not very keen on charities. Some of them are just political lobby groups for the rich.

But it's also the case that 'new' capitalists, particularly the high-tech types, tend to be much less inclined towards it than were their predecessors. Bill Gates is an exception and partly because his (old school) dad shamed him into it.

And you can cite government agencies doing the same. The main difference is that if a charity does something you don't like, you can stop donates and it goes away. Can't do that with government.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm speaking towards the general idea that Markets are always better. They are not, but they have their benefits and are better in certain things.

Burn the heretic! Burn him!

 

[realibrad]

A rare moment in which I agree with you. Religion kind-of morphed into science. Or science is a sort of mutant offspring of religion.

Oh, I bet you and I agree on quite a bit.

Science is better off not being attached to it now, but, the history of what was there is fact.

 

[realibrad]

I'm speaking towards the general idea that Markets are always better. They are not, but they have their benefits and are better in certain things.

Anyone who thinks markets are perfect is silly. This happens to be one where I think markets are better.

 

[pmv]

And you can cite government agencies doing the same. The main difference is that if a charity does something you don't like, you can stop donates and it goes away. Can't do that with government.

Not really, because charities that do things I don't like are funded by people who like what they are doing, so I can't stop them, not in a situation of increasing economic inequality. The government, on the other hand, is, however imperfectly, accountable even to voters without a lot of money. The shift towards charities is a shift towards plutocracy.

 

[Jhhnn]

And you can cite government agencies doing the same. The main difference is that if a charity does something you don't like, you can stop donates and it goes away. Can't do that with government.

I do love this "we can just do it with charity" routine, like it's ever worked well that way. A lot of scientific endeavor never would have been funded w/o govt.

 

[pmv]

"Morphed"? No, it wasn't a "Driver" either. At best it protected some ancient science and performed some. Early scientists of the last handful of centuries were often religiously motivated to scientifically confirm what they already believed, but that's a whole different thing than "Driving" science.

If early scientists were motivated by religion, then religion was a driver of science. All came out of the same impulse - the desire for an explanation of things.

And I have a sense that the Galileo example is a bit of a caricature. Science and belief weren't always at loggerheads.

Of course the two have diverged rather since then, I wouldn't argue that the two are happy bedfellows these days.

 

[Jhhnn]

Not really, because charities that do things I don't like are funded by people who like what they are doing, so I can't stop them, not in a situation of increasing economic inequality. The government, on the other hand, is, however imperfectly, accountable even to voters without a lot of money. The shift towards charities is a shift towards plutocracy.

Well, yeh, of course. Just take what they give us & never demand more.

 

[pmv]

Anyone who thinks markets are perfect is silly. This happens to be one where I think markets are better.

What do you mean by 'this'?

Crackpot pipe-dreams about colonising Mars? Quite possibly. Research that is critical to evaluating what the rich might be doing to the poor? Not so much.

 

[realibrad]

Examples?

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

Lots of them.

Historically, the Catholic Church has been a major sponsor of astronomy, not least because of the astronomical basis of the calendar by which holy days and Easter are determined. The Church’s interest in astronomy began with purely practical concerns, when in the 16th century Pope Gregory XIII required astronomers to correct for the fact that the Julian calendar had fallen out of sync with the sky. Since the Spring equinox was tied to the celebration of Easter, the Church considered that this steady movement in the date of the equinox was undesirable. The resulting Gregorian calendar is the internationally accepted civil calendar used throughout the world today and is an important contribution of the Catholic Church to Western Civilisation.

 

[realibrad]

Not really, because charities that do things I don't like are funded by people who like what they are doing, so I can't stop them, not in a situation of increasing economic inequality. The government, on the other hand, is, however imperfectly, accountable even to voters without a lot of money. The shift towards charities is a shift towards plutocracy.

If a charity can be funded by business and outside interests, how can government not be influenced in the same way? Take gun rights for example. If companies are funding charities that are unpopular, they are likely to pull funding.

 

[realibrad]

I do love this "we can just do it with charity" routine, like it's ever worked well that way. A lot of scientific endeavor never would have been funded w/o govt.

Then good thing I'm not making the argument that charity solves all eh. Why did you choose to make that a reply to me then?

 

[realibrad]

What do you mean by 'this'?

Crackpot pipe-dreams about colonising Mars? Quite possibly. Research that is critical to evaluating what the rich might be doing to the poor? Not so much.

This = Space exploration from today forward.

 

[sandorski]

If early scientists were motivated by religion, then religion was a driver of science. All came out of the same impulse - the desire for an explanation of things.

And I have a sense that the Galileo example is a bit of a caricature. Science and belief weren't always at loggerheads.

Of course the two have diverged rather since then, I wouldn't argue that the two are happy bedfellows these days.

The Driver of science is the Scientific Method. Early scientists merely thought their usage of the Scientific Method would confirm things about Reality that they were taught by Religion. That's all, it's not a Driver, it was just people with pre-conceptions given to them by Religion. It didn't take long before they realized their pre-conceptions were incorrect.