Subject:
|
Re: And now for something completely different...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:03:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
508 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
>
> > http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030307.html
> >
> > YMMV
>
> It certainly does. I think less of that particular source each time I see it
> cited.
>
> He has no idea what he's talking about in this case, and his collection of
> assertions is just that, a collection of assertions with bias (but no cites)
> behind them.
If by "assertions with bias (but no cites)" you're referring to the listed
citations of statements by the American Society for Cell Biology, Bob Park,
and Joel Achenbach, I'm afraid the burden is on you to establish that these
are biased sources, and you must also demonstrate that their points are
incorrect, and you must further demonstrate that their points are wrong
*because* they are biased. Otherwise, you're assembling an ad hominem
collection of assertions with bias (but no cites) behind them. Further, the
burden is *not* on critics to demonstrate that nothing (or too little) has
come of the space program; the burden is on those who make claims of the
great benefits of the space program.
In decrying The Straight Dope as a biased source unworthy of further
attention, you should also pitch Carl Sagan on that pile, since he was
vocally opposed to further manned space exploration. You may certainly be
comfortable with dismissing Sagan, but it would be worth clarifying why you
dismiss him as biased.
Anyway, I can hardly believe that you're arguing in favor of additional
(or maintained) government spending on space research. That is, after all,
the argument at hand. If we want to discuss the benefits of privatization
of space exploration, you'll get no dissent from me. And I remind the
audience that I already stated my view that space exploration is a worthy
end without having to justify the cost:return ratio.
(http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=19284)
> But to say that we haven't gotten back much more than we spent (viewed in
> the aggregate, and if you get to lump school lunch in with education, I get
> to lump man in a can launches in with weather satellites)... that's just
> either foolish or luddite.
Are you claiming, as some critics contend, that funding for such programs
as school lunches should not be included in "education spending" but should
be held separate? If so, then you'd have to concede that the portion of the
education budget spent on actual education is smaller than the entire sum
that is often cited as 'the education budget.' You can't simultaneously
claim both that 'too much is spent on education' AND 'not enough is spent on
education.' Your argument, at face value, is based on gerrymandering of the
budget; either you must accept that a sizable chunk of the Federal education
budget is *not* spent on general education, or you must accept that the
*actual* education budget is much, much smaller than the full budget figure
often cited.
But your particular comment does seem to involve the distinction between
manned and unmanned space exploration, and that's not a bad debate to
persue. No one, except the luddites you rightly take to task, objects to
robotic and remote-operated space vehicles. The costs of such projects are
small, even including the spectacular failures of several Mars missions.
The Galileo, Cassini, Voyager, Pioneer, Viking, and Pathfinder missions are
all glowing successes that eclipse a few inch/centimeter mistakes. Even if
the return on such investments is "only" increased understanding, I'd say it
will have been worth the price.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
43 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
