The Myth of Science as a Public Good (by Terence Kealey): part 1

[NecxZhor9]

lol this guy puts forth ground up arguments that science is not a public good and the best you youtube users do is nit-pick on small points and use it as basis for disregarding the entire point of what he is saying

[DINDRAGON]

zomg! a liberal-commie conspiracy!... AGAIN!

[buzwazfuz]

I can't stand this guys blabbing and trying to sell his book

[its6x9]

You discard anecdotal evidence and follow it by a story about Margaret Thatcher,

at least get the facts straight:

asuming conversation took place in 85 as you don't specify a date:

USSR Nobels :39

UK Nobels:90

China Nobels : 2

India Nobels : 3

May be we are better of having more Nobiles.

I understand why you don't get any public funding though ....

[buzwazfuz]

@its6x9 noble prizes don't mean anything, Al Gore and Obama even got one.

[its6x9]

@buzwazfuz the nobile prises example was rased in the video, not by me, i just set the facts straight.

[InfernalApocalypse]

@buzwazfuz: For Peace. Not for science. The Science prizes most definitely still mean something.

[4Colours]

What garbage.

[habbadou]

I think the largest reason is that research is greatly limited without large amounts of dollars, and that is easiest acquired by public funding.

[KAZVorpal]

Sadly, the US does fund what is osstensibly scientific research, too.

He is completely correct...except when he says that nobody agrees with him. In fact, libertarians and Conservatives have known this for a long time.

When government dominates a science, actual use of that science stagnates entirely. Regular people cannot use space travel, because NASA is the source of its "research".

If NASA had been in charge of computers or automobiles the same way, we would not have those, either.

[LazersFromJimmy]

satellites are pretty awesome, no?

[gunsandbullhorns]

"You mean like the Soviet Union?". Ha ha ha! ;D