Stop Stealing to Pay for Hobbies!

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

All you've done is transcribe the video and draw some vague conclusions and what I would consider slander. He does not talk like an expert and often points out his own lack of expertise in these matters. What about the many times he has praised the science you mention? Would you still claim he is too ignorant to comment on the nature of their funding? You have made a claim that he attacked their profession and you're wrong. You refuse to concede you're wrong so you're moving the goal-posts to make this about him being not fit to criticize the research. You just just don't like what he said, you made an attack that was wrong and now that you know you're wrong you're trying to spin it to appear that Stef is attacking something he's not.

Also, I'd like you to tell me what you think that comment about having to know as much as the physicist in order to be able to criticize them actually means. You should be able to tell us what it means and explain exactly how that relates to to Stef's criticism of government funding for science hobbies, right? 

[FriendlyHacker]

All you've done is transcribe the video and draw some vague conclusions and what I would consider slander. He does not talk like an expert and often points out his own lack of expertise in these matters. What about the many times he has praised the science you mention? Would you still claim he is too ignorant to comment on the nature of their funding? You have made a claim that he attacked their profession and you're wrong. You refuse to concede you're wrong so you're moving the goal-posts to make this about him being not fit to criticize the research. You just just don't like what he said, you made an attack that was wrong and now that you know you're wrong you're trying to spin it to appear that Stef is attacking something he's not.

Also, I'd like you to tell me what you think that comment about having to know as much as the physicist in order to be able to criticize them actually means. You should be able to tell us what it means and explain exactly how that relates to to Stef's criticism of government funding for science hobbies, right? 

 

You want to be a good philosopher? Start questioning everything and don't follow anyone. Sheep follow shepherds and always end up doing what the master wants, be your own man and think for yourself. And then you can tell me how quoting someone word by word is slander.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

You want to be a good philosopher? Start questioning everything and don't follow anyone. Sheep's follow shepherds and always end up doing what the master wants, be your own man and think for yourself. And then you can tell me how quoting someone word by word is slander.

You are not responding to the arguments made. Instead you are now making an imputation of me being a sheep. Of course you offer no proof and even if it were true it would not negate anything I've argued. It's a red-herring. Kindly shove your patronizing accusations. Do lecture me about being a good philosopher when you have got the sack to just admit you jumped the gun when you made this post and you got thing wrong. 

 

"And then you can tell me how quoting someone word by word is slander."

 

So you quoted him verbatim. So what? I can quote you word for word and then spin that anyway I want. Just because I can claim I quoted you word for for word, does it follow that any conclusion I draw from your words is valid?

No.

I ask again, If you agree with Stef that stealing to fund science is wrong then what is the purpose of the original post? Also why do you constantly avoid answering my questions? 

[Guest darkskyabove]

[Kevin Beal]

Sheep's follow shepherds and always end up doing what the master wants, be your own man and think for yourself.

"sheep" is plural already. Also it's not possessive or a contraction so the apostrophe shouldn't be there.

[FriendlyHacker]

"sheep" is plural already. Also it's not possessive or a contraction so the apostrophe shouldn't be there.

 

Thanks, fixed it.

[Mike Fleming]

You want to be a good philosopher? Start questioning everything and don't follow anyone. Sheep follow shepherds and always end up doing what the master wants, be your own man and think for yourself. And then you can tell me how quoting someone word by word is slander.

 

That's funny coming from a zeigeister.

Project Manhattan and its German counterpart funded all early advancements in particles physics engineering that gave us computer chips, lasers, semi-conductors, advanced ceramics, and etc...

 

The UK Government funded research done by Alan Turing on devising the Turing machine (aka the machine we call a computer nowadays), Turing was the one who devised a machine that could automatically break the German Enigma Code.

 

 

OK, great, you pick some arbitrary moment in time and then say all technology was based on what was created then.  What about all the science from past decades and centuries that that science was built on top of?  We stand on the shoulders of giants.  It wasn't the case that suddenly the government jumped in and started funding things where before there was nothing.  

[FriendlyHacker]

Zeitgeister? Have affiliation with neither the Zeitgeist movement or Peter Joseph. I'm a volunteer over The Venus Project. Nothing I say here represents the views of The Venus Project, and whatever TVP says also do not automatically represent my views.

 

One thing is saying all Physics is resulted from work done by Galileo and Kepler, a very different one is saying that the exact technology you have on your computer and telecom system, was funded by the government under real military intent. I could explain how each one of those pieces was created, if I have the time I might do it, but don't think I was well enough received here to be that generous.

[Guest darkskyabove]

Man, I hate to jump in when I already advised leaving the troll to starve. But Mike Fleming brings up an incontrovertible point.

 

How much state revenue and political backing did Galileo receive? Da Vinci? Darwin? (Debatable. He paid his way, but traveled on a government vessel) Bill Gates or Steve Jobs?

 

The idea that government is "required" to finance innovation is not only fallacious, it is dishonest. Can anyone spell "snake oil salesman"? Oh, oh, wait a minute. Isn't there a "private" organization working its way into the field of space exploration, despite the governmental obstacles? Oh yeah, there is!

 

This message has been sponsored by the Coalition to Stop Feeding the Trolls. Thanks for your support. It is the Coalition's hope that people will apply some critical thinking to what is posted, and not respond to those who are seeking attention. (Darn it, I responded. Oh, wait, I wasn't responding to the troll, I was responding to the responders. Whew, I feel so much better. )

[FriendlyHacker]

Really? Are you comparing traveling around the world collecting animals, making drawings or arranging a few pieces of glass and wood in the shape of a tube, with something like space age technology? Can you really not tell the difference?

 

Steve Jobs never invented anything, he was a very smart snake oil marketing guy that got rich and famous on work other people did, because he knew how to pack available technology in a nice and easy to use box.

[Mike Fleming]

Zeitgeister? Have affiliation with neither the Zeitgeist movement or Peter Joseph. I'm a volunteer over The Venus Project. Nothing I say here represents the views of The Venus Project, and whatever TVP says also do not automatically represent my views.

 

One thing is saying all Physics is resulted from work done by Galileo and Kepler, a very different one is saying that the exact technology you have on your computer and telecom system, was funded by the government under real military intent. I could explain how each one of those pieces was created, if I have the time I might do it, but don't think I was well enough received here to be that generous.

 

Whatever, same thing to me.  VP and ZM are as irrational as each other.  Both go on about RBE nonsense.

 

Your "all" statement has been debunked, now you are shifting the goalposts.  I can't be bothered any more.  I'm sick of having to press the "view it anyway" button because of your poor reputation just to see that my argument isn't addressed.

 

Not well received in a community of rationally, skeptic thinkers?  I think it says more about you than it does about us.

[Wesley]

http://aas.org/learn/careers-astronomy#business

 

 

 

Business and Private Industry

About ten percent of all astronomers work in business or private industry. A few industries, such as the aerospace field, hire astronomers to do research that may give their company a competitive edge. A number of consulting firms supply astronomy talent to the government for specific tasks. In addition, there is are large number of companies that, rather than conduct astronomy research, make use of the background and talents of the astronomer in related areas. Astronomers are generally well-versed in instrumentation, remote sensing, spectral observations, and computer applications to unusual problems. Job security may be somewhat less certain than in government and academia since there is no tenure or civil service in industry. The salaries, however, are often correspondingly higher, especially at mid-management levels and above. In practice, most companies protect their good employees, but the choice of work within a given company may be limited. In exchange for some loss of choice, there is the likelihood of getting a job that is technically challenging and that provides great opportunity for both intellectual and professional growth. Industrial employment offers a wide variety of nontechnical career paths as well. Although a Ph.D. is useful for industrial jobs, it is less often a formal requirement.

Other Related Jobs

"When I was a child, my parents sat me in front of the TV to watch the space flights. I didn't miss a single launch until the 8th shuttle lift-off! My dad bought me a telescope when I was five, and we often used it to look at the planets, or we'd lie on the hood of the car and just look up. In 4th grade, my teacher read A Wrinkle in Time to the class. I was immediately hooked on becoming a nuclear physicist so I could travel in time like the characters in the book.
I pursued my Bachelor's degree in physics, but with an astrophysics option. I continued with a Master's degree in physics using the VLA to map the radio emission from the nearby radio galaxy M87. I am now completing my Ph.D. in astronomy.
I wanted to do astronomy since I was a little kid. There are some who stumble into astronomy late in the game, but the majority of us have always had our eyes on the stars."

— Dean C. Hines, the University of Arizona. Primary research interest: Active galactic nuclei.

Astronomers working in planetariums, science museums, or in other public service positions provide an important information link between the world of professional astronomy and the general public. These jobs require a broad range of astronomy knowledge and the ability to communicate clearly and effectively with the public. Some jobs are available in secondary schools teaching physics or earth sciences, as well as in the science journalism field. Jobs in these categories generally do not require an advanced degree, although a Ph.D. or master's degree might prove useful at the more technical levels.

Although most astronomers have advanced degrees, people with an undergraduate major in astronomy or physics can find jobs in support positions at national observatories, national laboratories, federal agencies, and sometimes in large astronomy departments at universities. An undergraduate astronomy degree is excellent preparation for science teachers, laboratory technicians, computer programmers, and science journalists. It can also serve as the basis for graduate degrees in other fields, such as law or medical school. Some universities may not offer a major in astronomy for undergraduates, but may instead have a program in physics with a specialization in astronomy.

Planetary Resources, Inc.

http://www.planetaryresources.com/

 

REDEFINING NATURAL RESOURCES.

Planetary Resources is establishing a new paradigm for resource discovery and utilization that will bring the solar system into humanity’s sphere of influence. Our technical principals boast extensive experience in all phases of robotic space missions, from designing and building, to testing and operating. We are visionaries, pioneers, rocket scientists and industry leaders with proven track records on—and off—this planet.

 

 

List of private spaceflight companies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_spaceflight_companies

 

Are we entering the age of private spaceflight?

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2013/0930/Are-we-entering-the-age-of-private-spaceflight

 

 

 

Most of this is happening because public funding for astronomy and space travel has declined significantly. Without any public interference, things would continue in the areas where they can get private backers.

[FriendlyHacker]

"Most of this is happening because public funding for astronomy and space travel has declined significantly. Without any public interference, things would continue in the areas where they can get private backers."

 

Most of this happening because the hardcore investment was done by NASA 50 years ago, and now is a matter of adapting available technology, which is basically the way every consumer product is done, first Experimental Physicists and cosmologists figure out how X-Ray works, or if that is even a thing, build huge X-Ray machines, die from the radiation, and then the Hospital technology companies take advantage of subsequent miniaturization and sell the same technology for a fraction of the price.

 

When financial losses of figuring out how things work are taken, when all the mistakes are already done and people have died, is easy for the market to actually try selling it. Though I don't see the Nuclear Technology companies thanking Marie Curie for putting her life on the line and getting cancer, some people enjoy taking credit for the actual work.

[FriendlyHacker]

Also, would like to point out that Microsoft had the surface tablet about 10 years before Apple had the iPad, though it was the size of a dining room table and cost as much as a car. And ever wondered how touch screens actually work? You might find is directly related to peering at sparkly useless things nobody gives a shit about and won't part a penny for.

[Ray H.]

The financial origin of certain technologies is irrelevant. The issue is how technology is used. Only the state can produce ICBM's or tanks or drones or the intense internet spy network that has come to light this year. A truly free market would make all these things impossible. Would we have computer chips yet if not for the state? I don't know and neither do you. We have what we have. The good and the bad. The state has guaranteed that evil, life and freedom destroying devices have been created. The free market (i.e. unsubsidized, no government contracts) has produced nothing of the sort. It's sole aim is to satisfy human desire. I would gladly turn back the clock to a pre-World War era and run the experiment again with the condition that governments could not fund science. I would take whatever humans came up with technologically under such a condition, whether or not it turned out to be less advanced than we currently have. Because what I do know is that there would be no war machines and no surveillance state. Instead the massive potential of humans would have been directed only towards providing value to one another. And, to that end, you cannot know what technology we would have desired nor to what level we would have progressed.

[Think Free]

Also, would like to point out that Microsoft had the surface tablet about 10 years before Apple had the iPad, though it was the size of a dining room table and cost as much as a car. And ever wondered how touch screens actually work? You might find is directly related to peering at sparkly useless things nobody gives a shit about and won't part a penny for.

 

All your arguments are based on the fallacy of denying the antecedent. The fact that the development of some technologies was funded by the government doesn't mean that those technologies would not have been developed otherwise. There's plenty of evidence that when the government takes over funding something, it suppresses free-market investment in those sectors.

 

Darwin didn't practice modern science? He lived over 100 years ago. That's your explanation right there. The fact that this even has to be stated is ridiculous. Where was the government when Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, and the Wright Brothers were working? Their work was cutting edge at the time.

 

How do you expect companies to fund massive science projects when the government is heavily taxing them to pay for science?

 

As Stefan reported, studies have found that the majority of published scientific papers are supporting false conclusions. That's not a hobby; that's worse than a hobby. They're passing off lies as scientific truth. The much lauded "peer review" system which is used to vehemently suppress minority views in just about every field of science turns out to be useless. The fact that some truth and useful invention comes through in all of this waste of tax money does not validate the system.

 

When you keep pointing to alarmist claims to exaggerate the importance of the results, you just undermine your point.

[FriendlyHacker]

I don't understand why I get half of the comments I get on this topic.

 

This is a reply to a video uploaded by Stefan, if you haven't watched the video yet, or read my transcription, or read my previous posts on this topic, don't waste your time commenting because you have no idea what this is about.

[cynicist]

Telescopes are a hobby, though can predict civilization ending asteroid collisions, can be used to discover about global warming in other planets (and then find out it also happens here).

 

The Sun and Supernovas are fancy things, until we are hit face on by Gamma Ray radiation and die, or a huge EMP destroys all our electronics.

 

Atom smashers are a hobby, except all modern technology is based on the understanding of the inner workings of atoms, from computer chips, to lasers, to GPS and the Internet.

 

So you see, our life depends on those very hobbies you question the legitimacy of.It is ok to say you don't understand what these people are doing, no need to attack their profession out of ignorance.

 

I think you are reading too much into what Stef was saying. His argument wasn't that nobody should use telecopes or that science isn't important, he's just saying it shouldn't be funded by stolen money because that shows people don't want to pay for it.

 

 

Also, would like to point out that Microsoft had the surface tablet about 10 years before Apple had the iPad, though it was the size of a dining room table and cost as much as a car. And ever wondered how touch screens actually work? You might find is directly related to peering at sparkly useless things nobody gives a shit about and won't part a penny for.

 

Sure but that's why Microsoft has their own research division, because they don't expect other people to pay for it. I notice people like to point at things like NASA and DARPA and say how we wouldn't have space travel or the internet without government research, without considering that the same things could have been discovered without using stolen money. It's not like nobody would ever have figured out electronic communication or propulsion, because these are still interesting questions with or without the existence of the government to fund the answers to them.

[LuckyNumber23]

Most pharmaceutical companies spend more money on ads than on research. The problem is that doing basic research won't pay off in the near future, hence companies outsourced it to the gubmint. I am under the impression that Stef assumes that there can still be amateurish scientists like in the 18th century. In reality you need labs with tons of stuff and a lot of workers simply to verify experiments. In addition to that you can point at Austrian economics who should know better than scientists that they are paid with stolen money. The state "paid" for their "hobbies" as well. Where would be without von Mises or Rothbard?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Most pharmaceutical companies spend more money on ads than on research. The problem is that doing basic research won't pay off in the near future, hence companies outsourced it to the gubmint. I am under the impression that Stef assumes that there can still be amateurish scientists like in the 18th century. In reality you need labs with tons of stuff and a lot of workers simply to verify experiments. In addition to that you can point at Austrian economics who should know better than scientists that they are paid with stolen money. The state "paid" for their "hobbies" as well. Where would be without von Mises or Rothbard?

Hey Luckynumber23, the thing about what you're saying is that I can't tell if you advocate or support such theft or not. It always winds me up when people point out all the benefits of theft but do not commit to supporting it. So do you support theft? Yes or no?

[LuckyNumber23]

Teabagger, what constitutes support in your eyes?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Teabagger, what constitutes support in your eyes?

Do you consider theft morally permissible? Do you advocate it in any way? 

[LuckyNumber23]

Where do you draw the boundaries? Is anyone using public services or infrastructure a thief?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Where do you draw the boundaries? Is anyone using public services or infrastructure a thief?

Oh for god's sake, just answer the question. You either support theft in order to pay for science or you don't. Your question is irrelevant. Do you support theft or not? My answer to this question is NO. It's a yes or no question. You can fund these things voluntarily or you can fund them non-voluntarily. Non-voluntarily is theft. Do you support theft? Yes or no?

[LuckyNumber23]

You don't support theft, but you benefit from the theft, by using a medium that came into existence bc of the theft. Hence my question.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Yes I don't support it even though I benefit from it. I only only exist because of Hitler too.  So what? Do you support theft or not? Yes or no.

[Wesley]

Personally, I would have rather not have had slavery. Even though we got cotton from it, it doesn't justify the whole evil thing.

[PatrickC]

You'll have a hard time trying to make sense of the leftist mindset. It is stuck in the belief that stealing from others for the greater good of the collective as the highest virtue.

[LuckyNumber23]

I don't support theft to answer your question.

[LuckyNumber23]

On a related note. In a recent show Stef mentions the methodological dualism and that he agrees with Mises' premise. However, in the Bomb in the Brain series Stef uses findings from science to validate his position. Isn't that a breach of this dualism?