[Royce]

Ah well, I suppose I can start the "Materialist Skeptics' promise of a Moral Future is an offering of Snake Oil" thread a little earlier than scheduled...

Lol. I think we should invite Sheldrake to participate

Sam Harris wrote a good book about this called "the moral landscape" by the way, it might be worth your time.

[Madness]

Seriously though, is there anyone here strongly objecting to the idea that defense spending is almost certainly bloated and rife with waste? That in comparison NASA is a far better investment than handing out pork to defense contractors?

I had hoped you were simply honouring your namesake but you were so convincing .

Defense spending being wasteful is definitely the higher priority question, but it's also the less interesting one for a self appointed Contrarian Wanker because there's no contention around these parts on that.

Lol.

EDIT: I still think that, even if it's just a forum on the internet that never has any impact outside it's pages o'Web, it is important to articulate how we might do better with spending our collective human time (in research expenditures). We can do better.

[Wilshire]

Wish I could have found a better clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqs9DYisSsg

[EDIT: I replaced it with a better clip - Madness]

[sciborg2]

Ah well, I suppose I can start the "Materialist Skeptics' promise of a Moral Future is an offering of Snake Oil" thread a little earlier than scheduled...

Lol. I think we should invite Sheldrake to participate

Sam Harris wrote a good book about this called "the moral landscape" by the way, it might be worth your time.

I'm familiar with Harris's sad attempts to claim materialism solves the is-ought dilemma.

 

[Royce]

I'm familiar with Harris's sad attempts to claim materialism solves the is-ought dilemma.

If I recall correctly he was arguing against the notion that "good moral" is something we can thank religion for. He tries to give some credit to humans
instead of the supernatural, and I agree with that.

That atheism will save the world, is something I am somewhat skeptical about

[sciborg2]

I'm familiar with Harris's sad attempts to claim materialism solves the is-ought dilemma.

If I recall correctly he was arguing against the notion that "good moral" is something we can thank religion for. He tries to give some credit to humans
instead of the supernatural, and I agree with that.

That atheism will save the world, is something I am somewhat skeptical about

Heh, let's save this for the other soon to be born thread.

I still have to prepare a rebuttal to the idea that unpredictable side effect innovations justify expenditure into NASA's trekkie wish fullfilment.

Though not sure I can find enough clever Youtube videos to match what I guess is  Wilshire's argument via cartoons.

[Wilshire]

I've just fully encapsulated your arguments into 10 second clips. No need to get depressed. Maybe eventually you can have an idea that isn't so reducible. 

[sciborg2]

I've just fully encapsulated your arguments into 10 second clips. No need to get depressed. Maybe eventually you can have an idea that isn't so reducible. 

I don't think you've encapsulated my arguments so much as tried to reduce the moral question to a caricature you can use to rationalize your arguments as having addressed what I previously qualified as X.

Alternatively, part of me thinks a rebuttal to everything you've said can be captured by "Whitey on the Moon", but I'll do you the courtesy of formalizing my thoughts. 

So:

Perhaps you just didn't understand my point, or maybe you can't see how weak your arguments are from an investor standpoint. (Except for the asteroid detection.)

As someone who's done grant writing for living, I can tell you that trying to procure government funds by making promises about beneficial side effects rather than addressing the benefits of the actual project is very unlikely to be successful.

How do you even measure the benefits, or try to produce a reliable strategy for return on investment?

So far your argument seems to hinge on past technologies born of the space program that turned out to be helpful to society at large, though a lot of that seems incidental to the original purpose.

After a point that's just luck then right, and if your argument relies so much side effects then it seems to me you are already agreeing research into space exploration is largely worthless to the public at large if those benefits don't manifest.

As for the idea the Tyson's Star Trek wish fulfillment fantasy justifies the expenditure because it is interdisciplinary, I think green technologies can also bring in multiple disciplines but also benefit far more people in a more immediate fashion.

Heck, I was reading about the innovations in computer science that game production brought about. I'm guessing using NASA's budget to fund some education program relating to game development would inspire far more kids at the apparently critical early age in a far more reliable manner than pictures of rockets and planets.

Or just use the money for research in terrestrial fields. But space monies seems like one of the lowest ranking options compared to so many other things.

[sciborg2]

Apologies double posting, but seems cleaner to separate responses.

I had hoped you were simply honouring your namesake but you were so convincing .

Lol.

EDIT: I still think that, even if it's just a forum on the internet that never has any impact outside it's pages o'Web, it is important to articulate how we might do better with spending our collective human time (in research expenditures). We can do better.

I think the question about the opportunity cost of space monies is in itself worthwhile, because it asks us to surrender something we hold dear. If we're just nodding our heads in agreement about a topic this place loses the charm of Bakker's own gadfly nature.

The very fact Tyson's argument relies on an appeal to our dreams shows how silly materialists can be even after they renounce/denounce the dualists. What makes him so confident the upcoming generations' neuronal wiring that controls inspiration will stimulated by pictures from space?

My proposal for an interdisciplinary game development education program seems like a far more reliable investment.

Heck, I'd love for private money to go into space exploration, but from the standpoint of being loyal to the investor - in this case the public - I can't help but feel like NASA's space exploration research isn't going to benefit the tax payer.

I suppose the caveat is the need to leave Earth behind, but that only further suggests shifting the funds toward green tech research.

[Madness]

As someone who's done grant writing for living, I can tell you that trying to procure government funds by making promises about beneficial side effects rather than addressing the benefits of the actual project is very unlikely to be successful.

How do you even measure the benefits, or try to produce a reliable strategy for return on investment?

+1 - however, in applying for/distributing grant money, it is still absolutely necessary to justify/arbitrate the "possible benefits," aside the strict, and directed, purpose of research.

Alternatively, part of me thinks a rebuttal to everything you've said can be captured by "Whitey on the Moon", but I'll do you the courtesy of formalizing my thoughts. 

I thought, in context, that "Whitey on the Moon" stood well enough on its own but...

Apologies double posting, but seems cleaner to separate responses.

It's cool, though unnecessary because... 

Heck, I'd love for private money to go into space exploration, but from the standpoint of being loyal to the investor - in this case the public - I can't help but feel like NASA's space exploration research isn't going to benefit the tax payer.

With statements like this, I simply can't respond to you and take this discussion seriously (though, I'm a self-loathing philosophy student as this is my exact problem with my second degree) - I can't commit to or condone flat out ignoring so many distinctive variables (in my mind, not everyone perceives it like I do) just to consider your argument X. In my mind, it can't be considered, or even exist, separate from my argument Y.

However, as I'm incited by your contrarian efforts and I feel compelled to argue otherwise...

The very fact Tyson's argument relies on an appeal to our dreams shows how silly materialists can be even after they renounce/denounce the dualists. What makes him so confident the upcoming generations' neuronal wiring that controls inspiration will stimulated by pictures from space?

Well, yes and no... I don't think that was his argument and I highlighted why in my initial post.

Also, sci, you don't think Tyson has, or at least implies, strong arguments in the video with 'war as motivating factor x' (and by extension, replacing that with a healthy and consistent motivation) or 'one penny on the tax dollar' (whereas military spending is probably half that dollar)?

(Though, I guess, oddly enough, these are the exact extraneous variables you seem content to ignore...)

My proposal for an interdisciplinary game development education program seems like a far more reliable investment.

Maybe. Does it really seem likely to you that it would produce anywhere near same results that NASA has with their 1/100th of the pie in fifty years?

[Wilshire]

but I'll do you the courtesy of formalizing my thoughts. 

That would be really awesome, because you've said little more than "More to say later", "I still need to go through some replies", and "I'm not convinced".

I'm super excited to read some of your actual thoughts instead of just reading about how you're going to dodge every question and ignore every point!

So:

Perhaps you just didn't understand my point, or maybe you can't see how weak your arguments are from an investor standpoint. (Except for the asteroid detection.)

As someone who's done grant writing for living, I can tell you that trying to procure government funds by making promises about beneficial side effects rather than addressing the benefits of the actual project is very unlikely to be successful.

I understand your points rather well. I've even made articulate responses to everything you've said and ask you to clarify your statements a vast number of times. However, you don't seem capable. I guess its not fair to make you vocalize your thoughts? Sorry for making it so hard.

btw: How do you justify taking money for anything you do at all? You would have to be pretty full of yourself to think that any grant money you receive will provide any real lasting benefit to anything, outside of your own little personal hobby.
[/quote]

How do you even measure the benefits, or try to produce a reliable strategy for return on investment?

Measure it by refusing to use any technology that had to do with space research for a day.  I'm not on any comittees that measure research "value" and offer grant money, so I can't give you some kind of monetary estimate  .

So far your argument seems to hinge on past technologies born of the space program that turned out to be helpful to society at large, though a lot of that seems incidental to the original purpose.

After a point that's just luck then right, and if your argument relies so much side effects then it seems to me you are already agreeing research into space exploration is largely worthless to the public at large if those benefits don't manifest.

As for the idea the Tyson's Star Trek wish fulfillment fantasy justifies the expenditure because it is interdisciplinary, I think green technologies can also bring in multiple disciplines but also benefit far more people in a more immediate fashion.

Heck, I was reading about the innovations in computer science that game production brought about. I'm guessing using NASA's budget to fund some education program relating to game development would inspire far more kids at the apparently critical early age in a far more reliable manner than pictures of rockets and planets.

Or just use the money for research in terrestrial fields. But space monies seems like one of the lowest ranking options compared to so many other things.

Basically all this is a poor attempt to attain some kind of moral high ground. You seem confused and thats understandable, go back and reread some of the past posts and formulate some thoughts. Go ahead and raise your hand to ask a question about the parts you don't understand.

I suppose the caveat is the need to leave Earth behind, but that only further suggests shifting the funds toward green tech research.

Dear sweet heavenly lord Jesus almighty!!  You actually tried to make a point! Unfortunately green energy isn't the X we are talking about, so I'm going to have to disregard it.

[sciborg2]

Yeah, I think the way we perceive argument structure is vastly different. You think I'm ignoring/derailing, I think you're doing the same.

So let's back up a step and try to get back to a logical framework devoid of emotion or it's just an ouroboros of borderline ad hominem.

Give me a point you think I've ignored, and I'll either concede it or present a rebuttal as my neuronal wiring dictates.

[Wilshire]

Lets start again at the  beginning.

What is your actual question?
The topic sentence "why should we spend public funds to learn about space?" isn't really your question is it? To me "learn about space" doesn't mean anything. I don't know what you want to discuss.

Are you asking about funding NASA?
Are you asking about something like Hubble that just takes pictures, or are you saying that ANYTHING in space is in question here?

You say "argument X" but I feel like you have never actually adequately defined it in a way that makes it easy to discuss.

[Madness]

Sorry, I exacerbated miscommunication with my shorthand.

But:

My focus is X, where X is "Can space monies be spent on things that deliver more benefits to the society being taxed?"

So yeah, military spending vs space spending is Y. Which is cool, just not an argument about X as far as I can tell.

My understanding is that Sci strictly wants to debate where the 1/100th of taxpayer dollars that funds NASA could be better or differently spent to achieve more...

And so I shall henceforth limit my engagement in this context to:

My proposal for an interdisciplinary game development education program seems like a far more reliable investment.

Maybe. Does it really seem likely to you that it would produce anywhere near same results that NASA has with their 1/100th of the pie in fifty years?

[Insert research other than NASA here]; same question...

[Wilshire]

I'll wait to see what sci says. He's been very particular so far about whats fair and whats cheating so I think it would be prudent to know exactly what all the rules are before we move forward.

No one likes to play when 1 kid gets to change the rules during the game.
"I shot you!"
"No you didn't! I'm wearing class 4 bullet proof armor and your guns can't shoot through it."
"That's not fair"
"Well I made up the game so I get to make the rules"

I just want to know what can be used so I know before we start if its worth playing. If all I get is a rock and a stick and Sci gets plasma armor, I'll just play somewhere else.