Roger Bissell Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 Why "universities"? What a waste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 If liberals hate the Koch brothers, they must be decent good men. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 23 hours ago, Brant Gaede said: Why "universities"? What a waste. Our best scientific research is done at universities. Also at independent think-tanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted April 14, 2016 Share Posted April 14, 2016 On 4/12/2016 at 1:00 PM, Roger Bissell said: Where is this from, and where is the Fact Check department staff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted April 14, 2016 Share Posted April 14, 2016 5 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said: Our best scientific research is done at universities. Also at independent think-tanks. Where is the worst done? --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted April 14, 2016 Share Posted April 14, 2016 11 hours ago, Brant Gaede said: Where is the worst done? --Brant In government bureaucracies and in the labs of corporations receiving heavy government subsidies. In general few corporations engage in basic research (Bell Labs in its prime was a notable exception). Most corporate science application and research is done with the goal of promoting the companies business. Nothing wrong with that at all. But it is not basic research. Basic research by its nature does not have specific application as part of its motive or tactics. A pharmaceutical company is very unlikely to sponsor research that will prove its product is harmful so that is the factor of bias in company sponsored scientific programs. I might point out that university research is not free of bias factors. There is a decided pro AGW bias in university sponsored climate studies. A researcher who brings up evidence not supporting the AGW hypothesis is very likely to find his career ended or blighted. In a recent book on the Mann "Hockey Stick" ---"A disgrace to the profession"-- by Mark Steyn, 100 scientists in climate related fields such a meteorology, plant paleontology, atmospheric science, thermodynamics spoke against Michael Mann and his "hockey stick" About 90 of them were emeritus. That is they were safely retired. It is very difficult to get people in mid career at universities to say anything critical about "climate change" or anthropogentic climate warming. On the other hand, university research in fields that are not politically charged is generally rather good. For example the latest findings in fields and particles such as come from CERN or FermiLab are done by university based personnel. Universities, by the nature, are not constrained or confined to pursuing questions which are unrelated to bottom lines. To make any scientific progress it is necessary to pursue lines of research untroubled by such questions as can we sell this?, will this produce a profit in the next quarter? Of what practical use is this???. If someone asked Albert Einstein of what use was his theoretical research in space, time and gravity he would have had trouble responding. However in the fullness of time, nuclear power generation and GPS and other techno-goodies answer the question adequately. Einstein in his Nobel Prize winning paper on the photoelectric effect put quantum theory at the head of the class. Quantum related physics underlies 85 percent of all our technical innovation. But if you asked Einstein in 1905 what good is this Herr Doktor he would have given an abstract answer such as "it is good to know how nature is". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted April 14, 2016 Share Posted April 14, 2016 When scientists' "science" is waylaid by the need to get government or any grants the science is vitiated if for no other reason than their brains are in the wrong place. --Brant trying to convince bureaucrats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted April 14, 2016 Share Posted April 14, 2016 3 hours ago, Brant Gaede said: When scientists' "science" is waylaid by the need to get government or any grants the science is vitiated if for no other reason than their brains are in the wrong place. --Brant trying to convince bureaucrats Your GPS was developed by government sponsored programs. So was the internet. It was originally developed for government project scientists and engineers to communicate with each other. But its basic inventions were not bound by restrictive patents (because tax revenue was used to develop the internet and communications links) so the internet was vastly expanded when it was put in the hands of commercial entities. Government sponsorship or funding does not automatically produce bad results. If science were strictly private (in the real world it never was) we probably would not have the internet or GPS (originally developed for military use). One the other hand sometime private industry introduces "block buster" technology. For example the transistor was invented at Bell Laboratories (when it was in its intellectual prime) back around 1946 or so and released to the public in 1948. Transistors were developed by Bell Tell to improve the performance of telephone switching facilities to handle and ever increasing volume of calls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 On 4/14/2016 at 6:19 PM, Brant Gaede said: Where is the worst done? --Brant Universities. There is no such thing as "independent research" when parasites are leeching off of government funding. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 How do you think Salk and Sabin were funded when they were looking for a prevention of polio? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted April 23, 2016 Share Posted April 23, 2016 "Global warming". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 I used to defend the Koch brothers. Republican financier Koch says Clinton might make better president April 23, 2016 Reuters Not anymore. Nobody can tell me that supporting Hillary Clinton is due to fealty to conservative or libertarian principles. Nobody. This is crony corporatism, pure and simple. Why? Clinton has a history of playing ball. Trump looks like he might not. Also, Trump is self-funding his campaign. So he's not for sale to the Kochs. They won't be able to control him in the backroom. I guess oil is just too crony an industry when push comes to shove. And when the shove goes down, it's all those beautiful-sounding patriotic libertarian principles that get shoved right out the window. Hillary indeed. After all, a feller's gotta eat... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 Endorsing Clinton will get the Koch brothers the love of liberals.... which can only mean they're not decent men. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 Ann Coulter just now posted about Charles Koch on Facebook. First she linked to this article in the Daily Mail where Charles Koch said Clinton might be a better president than anyone in the GOP. Then she commented: Coulter said: A GOOD role model: Destroy American culture, just cut my taxes! Charles Koch trashes Trump 'terrible role model' Charles Koch imagines a libertarian paradise if only we could get another 50 million 3rd worlders voting in U.S! The flat tax and entitlement reforms in Somalia are AMAZING! Didn't they put a man on the moon? FLEXIBILITY! Instead of deporting all MS-13 gang members, Trump should move some to Wichita. I don't agree with her bash of the flat tax and entitlement reforms (the bash of Somalia works), but man, I want to spit... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 Is Trump's proposed wealth tax worth about $12.4 billion to the Koch brothers relevant? Nah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guyau Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 That iris is photoed from our own patch a couple of days ago. Michael, you wrote "Nobody can tell me that supporting Hillary Clinton is due to fealty to conservative or libertarian principles." I won't tell you again. I've repeated the principle for voting Democratic against such Republicans for years on these sites. Enough on that. Thanks, Roger, for the points about the Kochs. I have Democratic friends who are very taken aback by CK's statement. Last year the Leftist rags speculated all sorts of dark ulterior motives the Kochs must have for their contribution to criminal justice reform. Either they don't get the difference between a conservative and a libertarian, don't know the Kochs have long been the latter, or prefer the latter were swept under the rug. I am myself puzzled as to why CK thinks an H. Clinton administration could plausibly be superior to a Ted Cruz one. I mean the priority I place on Roe and its reasoning has never been a priority shared by the Kochs in their political activities. Maybe they don't like the immigration/hatred stuff Cruz rolls along with. I do get CK's interest in influencing the Republican candidates in his directions (and away from day after day of distraction from substance by negative personal junk, attack-the-media junk, . . .?) by the remark not ruling out relative merit (relative less demerit) of Clinton as President. If Trump wins the nomination (as I now expect if he wins Indiana), I imagine any Koch money going to elections this year will go to House races to try to stem a Democratic sweep. It remains as always that support of education in the value and efficacy of liberty will remain the most lasting contribution of the Kochs to politics in America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 6 hours ago, Guyau said: Michael, you wrote "Nobody can tell me that supporting Hillary Clinton is due to fealty to conservative or libertarian principles." I won't tell you again. I've repeated the principle for voting Democratic against such Republicans for years on these sites. Enough on that. Stephen, You are right. I wrote too fast. I should have made a distinction between those who have thought-out reasons (like you) and those who have preached their entire lives one thing only to betray their own previously held views because they stand to lose power. I have no issue with a person changing his mind, but, if his intellectual honesty is to be believed, there has to be a pivot point of some sort that shows why. There is nothing of the sort with Charles Koch. So I should have said: "Nobody can tell me that a man with Charles Koch's history suddenly supporting Hillary Clinton out of the blue is due to fealty to conservative or libertarian principles." Better? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 23 hours ago, merjet said: Is Trump's proposed wealth tax worth about $12.4 billion to the Koch brothers relevant? Nah. Merlin, Why, what on earth would make you think a thing like that? Some people have a price and now, at least, we know what Charles Koch's is. Anyway, this is all moot. Hillary rejected his support: Not interested in endorsements from people who deny climate science and try to make it harder for people to vote. https://t.co/TWN4zYhMBh— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) April 24, 2016 Well... she rejected his support out in public to her voters. I wonder when her folks are going to give him a call for a more private meeting of minds... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 25 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: So I should have said: "Nobody can tell me that a man with Charles Koch's history suddenly supporting Hillary Clinton out of the blue is due to fealty to conservative or libertarian principles." He did not say he supported Hillary. Nor does it mean Koch has abandoned his conservative or libertarian principles. One of the things he remarked on in the interview was government spending -- the growth rate during Bill Clinton's presidency was about half the rate during George W. Bush's presidency. Maybe Koch believes Hillary in the White House would be a lot more like Bill was than I do. My view: Bill wanted to be liked. Hillary likes power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 34 minutes ago, merjet said: He did not say he supported Hillary. Merlin, Charles Koch is anything but a stupid man. He knew quite well what the public impact of his comment would be. To believe otherwise is to believe he is a billionaire--in the oil industry at that--by accident. Impossible to be that? No... But he sure as hell doesn't strike me as Jed Clampett... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now