CURRENT EVENTS - April

ZenMode said:
I thought it was a pretty good comparison. I could have thrown in California hospice providers as another comparison since there seems to be little, if any, oversight for funding those as well.
Click to expand...
Scientific research is not the same as welfare and hospice. Really stretching there, Bo.
 
ZenMode said:
Why do we need 77 research centers?
Click to expand...
Well, for one thing, we have a big country with lots and lots of different habitats. And those habitats are geographically dispersed. And dispersed habitats have very different qualities to them. What is true for a temperate rain forest in WA is not necessarily true for pine trees in Appalachia or the Great Plains or more lush vegetation in MS.

Do you think that colleges shouldn't get research funds? After all, most major universities are research centers.

What about corporations? It might blow your mind to learn that most big tech companies have in-house R&D, totalling way more than 77.
 
superrific said:
Well, for one thing, we have a big country with lots and lots of different habitats. And those habitats are geographically dispersed. And dispersed habitats have very different qualities to them. What is true for a temperate rain forest in WA is not necessarily true for pine trees in Appalachia or the Great Plains or more lush vegetation in MS.

Do you think that colleges shouldn't get research funds? After all, most major universities are research centers.
Click to expand...
What I think is that you would very likely rationalize 154 research Forest Services research facilities. You'd probably rationalize 308 Forest Services research facilities, so there's no point is debating with you.
superrific said:
What about corporations? It might blow your mind to learn that most big tech companies have in-house R&D, totalling way more than 77.
Click to expand...
Non-taxpayer funded corporations can have allllllll the R&D facilities they can afford.
 
ZenMode said:
What I think is that you would very likely rationalize 154 research Forest Services research facilities. You'd probably rationalize 308 Forest Services research facilities, so there's no point is debating with you.

Non-taxpayer funded corporations can have allllllll the R&D facilities they can afford.
Click to expand...
What I think is that the right people to ask about research facilities is not you or me, but rather the scientists who work at them.

I will rationalize 154 or 308 facilities because most of us recognize a default presumption that research scientists are intelligent and knowledgeable. It's your burden to show that their decisions have been wrong, not my burden to defend it.

Of course, you operate on a different presumption -- i.e. that you have a valid opinion about everything, even though objectively you have proven dozens of times over that you rarely have a valid opinion about anything.
 
superrific said:
Well, for one thing, we have a big country with lots and lots of different habitats. And those habitats are geographically dispersed. And dispersed habitats have very different qualities to them. What is true for a temperate rain forest in WA is not necessarily true for pine trees in Appalachia or the Great Plains or more lush vegetation in MS.

Do you think that colleges shouldn't get research funds? After all, most major universities are research centers.

What about corporations? It might blow your mind to learn that most big tech companies have in-house R&D, totalling way more than 77.
Click to expand...
Beat me to it.
 
superrific said:
What I think is that the right people to ask about research facilities is not you or me, but rather the scientists who work at them.
Click to expand...
Right, we should ask the people who stand to financially benefit the most.
superrific said:
I will rationalize 154 or 308 facilities because most of us recognize a default presumption that research scientists are intelligent and knowledgeable. It's your burden to show that their decisions have been wrong, not my burden to defend it.
Click to expand...
It should be the government's job to justify having 77, since the federal government has proven, repeatedly, they cannot be trusted with our tax money.
superrific said:
Of course, you operate on a different presumption -- i.e. that you have a valid opinion about everything, even though objectively you have proven dozens of times over that you rarely have a valid opinion about anything.
Click to expand...
Yes, on its face, having 50% more research facilities than we do states is concerning and the government needs to explain it.
 
I will give Zen credit for this: he is incredibly well practiced at the ancient art of idiocy.

anyone who lives in Zona should know instantly why there might be more than one research center in a state. In fact, it's so obvious that I question whether he actually lives in Zona, though I suppose the idiocy part is relevant.
 
ZenMode said:
Apparently we fund research centers the way we fund Somali-run daycare centers.

Why do we need 77 research centers?
Click to expand...
About two research facilities per state? Is that too much for you? I doubt if these 'research facilities' are like the Tesla's or Apple's research facilities. I'm a scientist, but I don't exactly work in the Taj Mahal.
 
ZenMode said:
It should be the government's job to justify having 77, since the federal government has proven, repeatedly, they cannot be trusted with our tax money.
Click to expand...
Which they have done. Is this good enough for you?

Experimental Forests and Ranges | US Forest Service Research and Development

The Forest Service’s network of long-term experimental areas, commonly referred to as Experimental Forests and Ranges (EFRs), is the largest and longest-lived ecological research network in the United States. The current network of 84 Experimental Forests and Ranges has been established...
research.fs.usda.gov research.fs.usda.gov

Again, your ignorance does not mean reality is stupid. It just means you are stupid.
 
Bobfripp said:
About two research facilities per state? Is that too much for you? I doubt if these 'research facilities' are like the Tesla's or Apple's research facilities. I'm a scientist, but I don't exactly work in the Taj Mahal.
Click to expand...
They aren't even research stations. They are literally experimental nature facilities. They allow scientists to run tests on ecological systems. Since there are many ecologies, there need to be many experimental forests and ranges.
 
ZenMode said:
Right, we should ask the people who stand to financially benefit the most.

It should be the government's job to justify having 77, since the federal government has proven, repeatedly, they cannot be trusted with our tax money.

Yes, on its face, having 50% more research facilities than we do states is concerning and the government needs to explain it.
Click to expand...
I trust the federal government with your tax dollars more than I trust you with those tax dollars.

Also, the federal government is 10x more competent and better run than almost any state government - although Trump is working hard to even that score.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top