Re: Wages Vs Prices

On Mon, 02 May 2005 01:55:52 GMT, Les Cargill <lNOcargill@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>royls@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 May 2005 15:14:57 GMT, Les Cargill <lNOcargill@xxxxxxxxxxx>
><snip>
>>
>> And your evidence that no scientist working on unpatentable research
>> has bever been paid is....?
>>
>> Thought not.
>
>We're not talking about acedemicians.

<yawn> Is that why you snipped the context? So you could claim we're
talking about something else? How... predictable.

>We're talking
>about people who do product research.

And your evidence that no such people have ever been paid except out
of patent royalties is...?

Thought not.

>Scientists are either paid by endowments/universities,
>or they're paid as part of R&D for a corporation. Or
>both, in many cases.

Or they're paid by government, or anyone else who has a problem they
want solved.

>Salary as a professor is not compensation for
>research.

Garbage.

>It's conpensation as a cog in the
>academic wheel. It involves publishing, which is
>not research which is funded to develop products
>directly.

Irrelevant claptrap.

>>>>>So what, it becomes "open source"?
>>>>
>>>>That's science. Duh.
>>>
>>>No, that's not particularly "science".
>>
>> Yes, it most particularly _is_ science. Science requires research
>> findings to be publicly accessible.
>
>If someone uses the scientific method for research
>that's not publically accessible, it's still science.

Nope. As long as that research is not publicly available, it can't be
checked. Science can be checked.

>Science is a method, and nothing else.

That method requires sharing of results so they can be checked.

>>>The Edison paradigm for technology development
>>>hasn't been much improved on, beyond
>>>integration into modern finance.
>>
>> Maybe because the institutions it was designed to suit haven't been
>> much improved on?
>
>Mostly because they haven't needed to be improved on.

Sez you.

>It's
>always possible it's a conincidence, but the output of the
>scientific sector went up a bit since that model was
>developed.

Post hoc fallacy.

>When science was nothing but English lairds jacking
>about in labs, there wasn't much progress.

Actually, there was.

>After Edison, much progress.

Garbage. Compared to an "English laird" like Newton, Edison wasn't
even a scientist at all, and contributed almost nothing. He was
little more than a tinkerer with a good business model who mainly
worked at fencing off technologies others were developing as well, by
dint of getting to the patent office before they did.

>I detect a pattern here. I suppose the story of the
>Board of Longitude and John Harrison clearly
>stands as the very best that can be done?

That or the Manhattan Project...?

>>>Um, anything worth doing is worth doing for
>>>money. The all but utter failure of "open
>>>source" as a business model proves it.
>>
>> Garbage. That's like claiming the all but utter financial failure of
>> non-slave plantations in the antebellum South proved abolition of
>> slavery could not work.
>
>Strawman.

Garbage.

>Slave plantations themselves weren't economically viable
>at the beginning of the Civil War. The "open source" model
>is gasping for air as we speak.

Hehe. That might have something to do with the property rights in
suffocation machines that have been discussed on this ng before...

>But if you want to ignore a small mountain range of
>empirical evidence, that's just fine.

The empirical evidence is that English lairds, considering how few
they were and the fact that they weren't doing science to make a
living, did pretty damn well at it.

>The *fact* remains
>that if investors in a corporation wanna fund research
>on condition that it remain closed, they can do so.

Sure. As can government, with military research. So?

>>>>>>Capital is attracted to profit opportunities. If people can be cured
>>>>>>of cancer by taking a single 10-cent pill, of course no capital is
>>>>>>going to be attracted. But make those pills cost $10 each, and reduce
>>>>>>the potency so you need a couple a day for a few years before your
>>>>>>cancer is cured, and suddenly, capital is going to be, like, _so_
>>>>>>attracted....
>>>>>
>>>>>Cancer is a Big Problem. The diseases cured by antibiotics
>>>>>were Big Problems, and antibiotics were considerably more
>>>>>than $0.10 pills. IOW, it Doesn't Seem Likely.
>>>>
>>>>With a rent-seeking model of medical science, it is Downright
>>>>Impossible.
>>>
>>>But that was the model under which antibiotics came.
>>
>> ?? Nope. Flat false. Penicillin was an entirely serendipitous
>> discovery. Most others were derived from government-funded research.
>
>I mean post-penecillin. That was big pharma. Of course, it's
>a hybrid model, but there's a closed portion of the business,
>too. We have finely grained canons of medical ethics
>which cover all this.

ROTFL!! With all the recent news stories about killer
painkillers....?

>The provision of government research is in the spirit and
>practice of patent law, and all IP law.

Nonsense.

>It's there to stiumlate
>the production of new medicines. Clearly, that's a public good.

The _goal_ is perfectly fine. It's the assumption that there is no
other way to achieve it than by granting private monopolies that is
bogus.

>>>>>The marginal
>>>>>utility of a cure for cancer is *considerably* more
>>>>>than a dime. The traffic'll bear it.
>>>>
>>>>So cancer patients should be robbed to support the lavish lifestyles
>>>>of rent seeking millionaire patent lawyers and pharmaceutical company
>>>>executives and shareholders???
>>>
>>>Cancer patients can certainly pay for treatment just
>>>like everybody else.
>>
>> Treatment, yes. But not economic rent.
>
>Old saying, boyee - no bucks, no Buck Rogers.

?? There are other sources of bucks than economic rents. Duh.

>>>But I suppose research scientists
>>>can work as greeters at Wally World to support the
>>>research. It's science! It's immune to the laws of
>>>economics.
>>
>> No, but you certainly seem to be.
>
>No, I understand how property works.

No, you don't.

-- Roy L
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: canRe: Moderatorial Note
    ... > where possible are pretty much the core of it. ... > Evidence, rationality, ... I presume that if one were to omit "quantitative" from that list, one might no longer be talking about science, though even there you seem to regard it desirable but not essential. ... even among scientists, puts some limits on how severe any ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Gould vs. Dawkins
    ... and am told by scientists that that is beyond knowing. ... that opinion in the light of evidence. ... what are called beliefs, which are actually opinions. ... science, then tell me what causes a thought, give me a scientific ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Gould vs. Dawkins
    ... and am told by scientists that that is beyond knowing. ... that opinion in the light of evidence. ... what are called beliefs, which are actually opinions. ... science, then tell me what causes a thought, give me a scientific ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Gould vs. Dawkins
    ... and am told by scientists that that is beyond knowing. ... that opinion in the light of evidence. ... what are called beliefs, which are actually opinions. ... science, then tell me what causes a thought, give me a scientific ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Fundies worry about their own kids. Oh, the horror!
    ... If you assert that I am referring to science as a "new god" you are ... It was accepted because the evidence showed that the events ... We have observed evolution through mutation and natural selection ... You should try reading articles from scientists. ...
    (talk.origins)