[grandempire]

> In your view, the government should’ve not funded the research that resulted in, say, the internet

No. I’m saying just because things had unforeseen value in the past does not mean we should not scrutinize which projects we fund.

In other words, having bad prospects for utility or success is not a virtue.

The limit of that argument is that anything and everything deserves funding because it might be useful even if its prospects look terrible.

> These are basically nonsensical objections

What’s nonsensical is to say funding science means good things happen, not funding science means bad things happen. What’s science? I don’t know. Everything from particle physics, to elementary school surveys.

[jmye]

> What’s nonsensical is to say funding science means good things happen, not funding science means bad things happen. What’s science? I don’t know. Everything from particle physics, to elementary school surveys.

I think, in aggregate, it’s trivially true that funding science results in good things happening. I think if there are specific studies that appear valueless, they could be assessed for future potential outcomes, wherein “we don’t know” is a viable and not unvaluable answer.

I don’t think anyone disagrees that there’s value in oversight, they , and I, just disagree that not knowing, right now, the future outcomes isn’t really indicative of anything and is not a comment on the presence or absence of that future value.

[grandempire]

> it’s trivially true that funding science results in good things happening

It’s trivially true in that you’ve defined science to mean “good and valuable research”.

Let’s make that more concrete. What qualifies as science and what’s not with funding. Is doing a survey about whether having the color red in a classroom helps student performance, science?