If history is a guide, and we want to build more in this time (and in the future), we should all want much more government funding for basic science. Government funding for basic science is in the foundation of almost everything we build.
-
-
Or more simply stated: phenomenon you describe is IMO a predictable outcome de facto monopsony.
-
and requiring an output. to indulge in a bit of reductio, we have computers, software, Silicon Valley, etc. because 140-90 years ago a bunch of mathematicians and philosophers were dicking around with blatantly completely useless recursive function theory and formal semantics.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
How small of donations are you accepting?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Splitting them up would also allow for competition between scientific paradigms, vs. paradigmatic hegemony Quirky example: Researchers who study the impact of low-carb diets on health have to reframe their research questions into the "caloric balance" paradigm to get NIH funding
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.