Subject:
|
Re: And now for something completely different...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 7 Mar 2003 21:45:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
526 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > 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.
>
> No. If two sources come to the same conclusion about something and one is
> biased and unworthy of further consideration that does not so tar the other
> source.
But if you're dismissing the conclusion of Source A because it is flawed,
then you must dismiss the same conclusion from Source B. If you're
dismissing the conclusion from Source A because you believe that Source A is
biased (which still hasn't been demonstrated, by the way), then you are
dimissing the conclusion on the basis of ad hominem reasoning. Your
statement doesn't specify that either Source A or Source B arrived at the
conclusion through faulty methods--you only assert that Source A is biased
and then decide by fiat that the conclusion is flawed. The conclusion (ie,
that manned spaceflight is not justified, given the pricetag) is equally
valid or flawed whether if comes from Cecil or Carl.
> > Anyway, I can hardly believe that you're arguing in favor of additional
> > (or maintained) government spending on space research.
>
> But I am not, in fact arguing that at all. I'm arguing for private
> exploitation of space. Not exploration, exploitation, and private funded,
> not government funded.
But once again, that isn't the argument at hand. Since there has been no
appreciable private exploration of space[1], there's no point, at this
point, in discussing whether space exploration to date has had a sufficient
"return" relative to other programs to justify increasing its operating
budget. We can speculate about future profitability, but in the short term
(ie, until we can get *to* somewhere in space rather than simply in orbit)
it's all idle speculation.
Unless, of course, you're talking about space tourism, which does indeed
have a much rosier outlook for short-term profitability. I'm not sure what
kind of restrictions are in place against privately-run orbital launches, so
I can't comment on what they might be. Before I would believe any sort of
"the government has no right to restrict private launch experimentations,"
I'd need to see full disclosure of the methods of launch and a detailed,
impartial analysis of the safety precautions and oversight.
Dave!
[1] A tiny handful of satellites and one-shot rockets don't count, and
neither do privately-owned multimillion-dollar satellites carried into orbit
aboard Federally-funded rockets.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
43 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
