Mike Huckabee

Permabear · 09-04-2009 1:26pm

This post has been deleted.

fitz0 · 09-04-2009 1:45pm

Sorry I left my conspiracy hat at home.:pac:

Of course governments fund science that upholds their ideologies. But scientific results will get published if they are right. The governments may fund them but they don't get to say if the results are right or wrong.

And if a government developed the same cure? That would be unethical because they took money from the poor unfortunate working man.

If a private company developed a cure for cancer you can be damn sure they would patent it and sell it at a huge cost to the consumer. People would pay too, because people don't want to die. Is that the way you want science and new technology to work?
A government on the other hand would subsidize a vaccine and give it out for a under cost price, or free on a medical card.

Of course he would. But he is a very good speaker, something America hasn't had for the last 8 years. I'm opposed to some of his policies, sure, but I'm very surprised to find that he thinks more money should go to NASA. I can only go on what wikipedia says atm, but he would certainly have been better than Bush.

Dinner · 09-04-2009 2:05pm

And what would the world be like if Hitler was never born, what would it be like religion disappears. We can make up all the what ifs that we want. But I would rather trust government backed scientific research than privatley funded. All bias aside, does any private investor(s) have the resources to sufficiently fund this research?

You're quick to point out the bias that a government could have towards the scientific results. But what about the expectations of a private investor. How many investors will donate millions or billions without expecting any financial return? Surely it's possible that private donators would fund research that upholds their ideologies, and repress or ignore scientific research that does not. In doing so, they pervert the process of uncovering the truth, and often inhibit the advancement of science in their nations.

And yes of course it's a good thing if privately funded scientists discover a cure for cancer. But again, where do you find investors that are willing to donate on the possibility of discovering a cure and thereby getting profits from the treatments?

The fact remains that the resources available to governents is far greater than those available to a group of private investors. So there is little choice but for governments to take the brunt of it. I applaud these individuals willing to give their money to scientific research, and hope it happens more but I simply do not think that they would have enough to get anywhere long term.

From what I've heard he would take the Bush approach where government would help fund non-embryonic research but the rest would need to be privately funded leading to the (continuation of) ridiculous situation where 2 sets of equipment and power sockets are needed. So yes, it would impact their ability to carry out stem cell research as the already limited amount of privately donated money needs to be wasted to buy equipment that they already have.

Permabear · 09-04-2009 2:21pm

This post has been deleted.

philologos · 09-04-2009 2:30pm

Edited your post. I promote adult stem cells. I think the Government should respect the moral views of the population on the issue, in a way that they haven't here in Ireland.

pH · 09-04-2009 2:47pm

Do you think that once majority of any population support any moral view that the government should respect that or just the ones you happen to agree with. For example if you lived in China and 51% of the population found Christianity to be repugnant and wanted it suppressed would you agree and encourage the government's persecution of Christians?

And as for all the market driven arguments above, science works best when free of all ideology, replacing government funding with private sector funding wouldn't really work, it's difficult to see how things like CERN could ever get funded by a company looking to turn a profit, yet overall the benefits that scientific research have brought to humanity have been immense.

This is very much tied up in questions raised by various non-zero game theory problems such as "the tragedy of the commons", it's better we all chip in a small amount and let scientists investigate what's interesting and promising to them, rather than hoping that private enterprise can provide it.

philologos · 09-04-2009 2:49pm

pH: Would be relevant if it didn't go against the Constitution, which it clearly does. Only by plebiscite should the constitution be altered.

fitz0 · 09-04-2009 2:53pm

If the conclusions don't match what the government funders want then so be it, if they do, they do. As for alternate research thats where private investors come in, or alternative government agencies. There's always more scientists willing to research anything.

Women of the world wept, I'm sure.

The fact is there are very very few private companies with the sort of money to spare to fund such research. It could potentially be a bottomless pit for them to throw their money in. At the end of the day, a company is judged on its success, its profits, not its willingness to pour billions into uncertain research. Governments on the other hand are expected to help out on such projects. Governments give grants to universities for just such unsure research. I'm in no way saying that only governments should fund scientific research, I'm saying that for big projects they're the only ones who can.

As would i but America needs a charismatic leader right now and they have one in Obama. Perhaps that sentence should have been shorter by one word since I was only saying that he is quite charismatic. Diplomacy is as much a part of being a president as anything else.

pH · 09-04-2009 2:57pm

So you're saying that you're fine with the Chinese government's persecution of Christians as long as 51%+ of the population supports it and it's in their constitution? I guess you're fine with what happens in Tibet too, as they're such a small percentage of "China" as long as the majority thinks they should be suppressed then that's fine too. You see I'm guessing you wouldn't be happy with smaller subsets of the Irish population (say Kerry) deciding that embryonic stem cells research was right for them, you're only happy with this concept of "the moral views of the population" if the population size is just right (for you) and the moral views are just right (again for you).

philologos · 09-04-2009 5:10pm

pH: If a majority of the Irish population supports it I'd have to accept it even if I disagree. We have no evidence to suggest that most do though.

Húrin · 09-04-2009 7:10pm

I'm sure his other policies are available to read about on his website.

I have heard this slippery-slope type of argument before, but in practice it doesn't seem to cause a general opposition to science/world destruction.

I would vote for people based more on their policies than their beliefs. I don't care for religious tests in politics.

Actually a lot of technological innovation has come about through experiments done in space. I've even heard that for ever $1 spent by the Americans in space, they're eventually made back $2 through the fruits of the research.

Húrin · 09-04-2009 7:32pm

The purpose of science is not to uncover the truth, but to serve human survival needs.

Galvasean · 09-04-2009 7:51pm

What if his beliefs (in this case Creationism) are likely to have a direct negative effect on science (a plolicy which I am concerned about)?
With 6 day Creationism in reagrds to science you can't just assume one won't encroach on the other.

Mickeroo · 09-04-2009 7:55pm

Surely thats the purpose of medical science but not all science?

Húrin · 10-04-2009 6:12pm

No, all science serves this function. For instance, research that lets us communicate faster, grow more food, or travel faster gives us obvious advantages as a group. Advantages over other animals and other groups of humans. We are not in a position to know the objective truth about the universe.

Mike Huckabee

Comments