Question for madnak

[bunny]

In the "What future event do you regret not seeing?" thread you wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
Who cares? If there's no value in going to Mars, why should we go there? How about we fund cancer research or computer technology or something useful instead? Just as long as we're spending hundreds of billions, we might as well get something more from it than bragging rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

I found this interesting as it seems to me that inherent in any exploration or scientific investigation is an uncertainty - we may find something useful or we may not. This seems particularly more so with regard to pure mathematics, which often lies dormant for years and years before being adapted into something "useful".

It seems to me that we should do things like this - not because it will lead to something useful, a greater knowledge or whatever. Rather we should do it because it might - the "evidence" for this view being that scientific investigation often has.

Do you adhere to a hardline view that resources shouldnt be wasted on looking into situations unless there is a clearly identifiable advantage to be gained?

[madnak]

Yeah. I shouldn't have made the comment on that thread - it was more appropriate for the politics forum.

I agree with you - but that doesn't justify every expenditure. The costs versus the potential benefits must be weighed. Also, with limited resources it's important to prioritize.

I don't think space exploration in general is useless. But I do think we should have more justification than "that would be cool" before implementing massive programs. Putting a man on Mars seems very pointless to me, at least for now. Research into health care and computer science seems to have much greater potential. It's a matter of putting resources where they are likely to be most effective.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah. I shouldn't have made the comment on that thread - it was more appropriate for the politics forum.

I agree with you - but that doesn't justify every expenditure. The costs versus the potential benefits must be weighed. Also, with limited resources it's important to prioritize.

I don't think space exploration in general is useless. But I do think we should have more justification than "that would be cool" before implementing massive programs. Putting a man on Mars seems very pointless to me, at least for now. Research into health care and computer science seems to have much greater potential. It's a matter of putting resources where they are likely to be most effective.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the difficulty is that it is often impossible to say what, if any, benefits will accrue in advance. This is very clear with pure mathematics, but I think also in the hard sciences. I'm probably biased being a pure mathematician, but I wouldnt like to see research having to be justified based on what benefits will result. I trust that quality research will lead to useful results, even if many paths of exploration are fruitless.

Prioritising is necessary, of course, but I think there is more than economics at work. I dont think much of "value" has been produced from all the collisions studied in particle accelerators other than a bunch of theories (which some people enjoy but hardly enough to justify the billions that has been spent worldwide). Nonetheless, particle physics may lead to new technology one day and I think it is also worthwhile for its own sake.

[madnak]

It's very unpredictable, but that doesn't justify all research. The question of whether it's worthwhile in theory is irrelevant until the costs are considered. How much has been spent on particle accelerators and related technology? Where could the resources have gone if they hadn't gone toward particle research?

If you always play 72o you'll eventually win a big hand with it.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont think much of "value" has been produced from all the collisions studied in particle accelerators other than a bunch of theories (which some people enjoy but hardly enough to justify the billions that has been spent worldwide). Nonetheless, particle physics may lead to new technology one day and I think it is also worthwhile for its own sake.

[/ QUOTE ]

How much are you willing to pay for it? Write a check and leave me out of it. If it leads to new technology, congrats. If not, well, it was worth it for it's own sake.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that we should do things like this - not because it will lead to something useful, a greater knowledge or whatever. Rather we should do it because it might - the "evidence" for this view being that scientific investigation often has.

[/ QUOTE ]
We should do it anyway. Somethings are valuable in themselves and we do them because we can not because they might lead to something else.

chez

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
Nonetheless, particle physics may lead to new technology one day and I think it is also worthwhile for its own sake.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know a whole lot about the individual historical details, but pretty much anything "modern" you can think of--microwaves, computers, bombs, power plants, lasers, brain scanners, etc.--is directly traceable back to quantum mechanical experimentation.

[bocablkr]

Do you realize how much technology was created or advanced by going to the moon? Its influence on modern technology is almost immeasurable. Now going to mars may not have nearly as dramatic an impact but there will still be some. Someday, we may need to live on Mars and it might be best to get started sooner rather than later.

I also agree with Chez - sometimes just doing something is important in its own sake, regardless of the rewards. While I agree that funding in other areas is important, I believe space exploration is also incredibly important. Understanding the Universe and our place in it is reason enough.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you realize how much technology was created or advanced by going to the moon? Its influence on modern technology is almost immeasurable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe, maybe not. Where would health research be right now if we had invested there instead? Do you claim to know?

[ QUOTE ]
Now going to mars may not have nearly as dramatic an impact but there will still be some. Someday, we may need to live on Mars and it might be best to get started sooner rather than later.

[/ QUOTE ]

We may need to live on Mars? How do you mean? Why is a manned mission to Mars going to be more cost-effective than an unmanned mission? What are the costs of an unbalanced allocation of resources in the meantime? Is focusing on a manned Mars mission right now the most effective way to explore Mars, even if that is the highest priority? Or would increases in technology and productivity in other areas allow us to explore much more effectively later on? How many dozens of relevant problems are you ignoring?

[ QUOTE ]
I also agree with Chez - sometimes just doing something is important in its own sake, regardless of the rewards. While I agree that funding in other areas is important, I believe space exploration is also incredibly important. Understanding the Universe and our place in it is reason enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reason enough for what? You haven't even approached the issue of cost. If it destroys the human race, is that an acceptable cost? I doubt you'd say yes. And if the total cost over the next 100 years is exactly $5.00, I'll pay for it myself. Because any rational person will consider that an acceptable cost.

Most likely we're talking about hundreds of billions. Where do you propose to take those billions from to make the cost acceptable? Is it okay if they're taken from medical research? From the poor? From industry? Is it okay if they're taken at gunpoint from the general public? How do you propose to appropriate the funds and justify that appropriation? Where would those funds have gone if you hadn't appropriated them, and what would their value have been?

You're acting like it's foolish to weigh the costs and benefits of situations involving research. That's patently absurd. Whatever intrinsic value certain research has, that doesn't mean it justifies any cost. Any program that costs so much has strong economic effects that must be considered. A failure to consider these implications will dramatically increase the costs at best, and may even stunt the relevant programs themselves.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
You're acting like it's foolish to weigh the costs and benefits of situations involving research. That's patently absurd. Whatever intrinsic value certain research has, that doesn't mean it justifies any cost. Any program that costs so much has strong economic effects that must be considered. A failure to consider these implications will dramatically increase the costs at best, and may even stunt the relevant programs themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]
no-ones saying it justifies any cost, just that it's value should not be measured only by the economic benefits it produces.

chez

[madnak]

I agree with you. And maybe I'm wrong about Mars, I don't know much about the situation to be honest. I just find it troubling that many people seem to consider the benefits of research without paying any attention to the costs.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you. And maybe I'm wrong about Mars, I don't know much about the situation to be honest. I just find it troubling that many people seem to consider the benefits of research without paying any attention to the costs.

[/ QUOTE ]

No-one is ignoring the costs. Were you alive at the time we started the Apollo program? If not, you should really study the economic impact of that program as well as the technologies it produced. Remember, the money is not just being wasted, it is going into the economy, it is producing good jobs, creating increased tax revenues (which the government can then spend on other programs like health care, etc), spurring new scientific research.

Do I agree with Bush's new push to Mars or the Moon. Probably not at this time. I am all for space exploration however, and it is entirely different planning a manned mission verses non-manned as far as the technology developed. At some point, we will need to leave this earth for 'greener' pastures. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[madnak]

I don't know. I like Earth. Can I keep it after all of you leave?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you. And maybe I'm wrong about Mars, I don't know much about the situation to be honest. I just find it troubling that many people seem to consider the benefits of research without paying any attention to the costs.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm with you but its tough to consider cost/benefits in a sensible way because the benefits (economic and intrinsic) are hard to quantify and cost estimates are stunningly unreliable. Maybe we should dispense with such analysis.

Has anyone done a cost/benefit analysis of cost/benefit analysis?

chez

[madnak]

That's a good point. I think further discussion would get too political for this forum because it would have to get into who provides the funding, and at the moment that's government.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you. And maybe I'm wrong about Mars, I don't know much about the situation to be honest. I just find it troubling that many people seem to consider the benefits of research without paying any attention to the costs.

[/ QUOTE ]

No-one is ignoring the costs. Were you alive at the time we started the Apollo program? If not, you should really study the economic impact of that program as well as the technologies it produced. Remember, the money is not just being wasted, it is going into the economy, it is producing good jobs, creating increased tax revenues (which the government can then spend on other programs like health care, etc), spurring new scientific research.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that money could be doing all of that without the space program and the tons of resources it consumes building gigantic firecrackers.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
That's a good point. I think further discussion would get too political for this forum because it would have to get into who provides the funding, and at the moment that's government.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm happy to avoid politics on this. I'm not even sure where I stand but the real problem isn't political. Whoever has enough funds and is deciding how to spend them will run into the problem that cost/benefit analysis is of dubious value.

chez

[madnak]

What's the alternative?

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
Has anyone done a cost/benefit analysis of cost/benefit analysis?

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually there is some interesting literature on this. I like Simon's view--that above a certain minimum value, you should halt all further calculations.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
What's the alternative?

[/ QUOTE ]
That's the problem /images/graemlins/smile.gif

but administrative systems that don't work are disasterous. That's how mind numbing, money wasting, power hungry burocracy feeds (in companies and governments - politics free zone).

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Has anyone done a cost/benefit analysis of cost/benefit analysis?

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually there is some interesting literature on this. I like Simon's view--that above a certain minimum value, you should halt all further calculations.

[/ QUOTE ]
I like Simon as well. Who is he? and where was he when I had to try to explain why the pointless meeting I was sitting in was pointless?

chez

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Has anyone done a cost/benefit analysis of cost/benefit analysis?

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually there is some interesting literature on this. I like Simon's view--that above a certain minimum value, you should halt all further calculations.

[/ QUOTE ]
I like Simon as well. Who is he? and where was he when I had to try to explain why the pointless meeting I was sitting in was pointless?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably dead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Simon. "From Substantive to Procedural Rationality" sums up his view on bounded rationality.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nonetheless, particle physics may lead to new technology one day and I think it is also worthwhile for its own sake.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know a whole lot about the individual historical details, but pretty much anything "modern" you can think of--microwaves, computers, bombs, power plants, lasers, brain scanners, etc.--is directly traceable back to quantum mechanical experimentation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Indeed, and this has no doubt been part of the reason physics has been so well funded (plus the nuclear bomb and its profound change on the world). What I meant is lots of the later stuff - which to my knowledge hasnt produced anything substantive other than better theories of how the world works.

[Chips_]

President John F Kennedy Sept 12, 1962:

"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too. .....Many years ago the great British explorer George Mallory, who was to die on Mount Everest, was asked why did he want to climb it. He said, "Because it is there." Well, space is there, and we're going to climb it, and the moon and the planets are there, and new hopes for knowledge and peace are there. And, therefore, as we set sail we ask God's blessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked. "

Star Trek:
"To boldy go where no one has gone before"

Thats why we will go to Mars.

Going to Mars does not take away from an effort to cure cancer. We must not abandon a path to some of mankind's greatest achievements because of a fixation on some of our problems. We can - and will - make progress on both.

[madnak]

Uh, yes it does. Going to Mars would require an enormous quantity of scarce resources. I assume you know what "scarce" means? That means those resources are limited, and if they weren't used to fund an expedition to Mars they could be used to fund cancer research.

Justifying tyranny in the name of petty sound bytes is one of my biggest pet peeves, so you'll have to excuse me if I come off a bit aggressive.

George Mallory wasn't robbing people or forcing them into poverty in order to climb Mount Everest.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
Going to Mars does not take away from an effort to cure cancer.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you burn up 50,000 gallons of fuel in testing booster rockets, that fuel cannon be used for something else, when you take a thousand engineers and put them to work on a project those engineers cannot contribute to something else. Going to mars will clearly cost other programs funding, materials and personel.
As for JFK- he was a politician who used the space program as a means of differentiating himself from his competition trying to show that he would lead the US into a new frontier to gain votes. JFK wasn't Goerge Mallory- goerge Mallory risked his own life to attack everest, JFK risked other people's lives to gain votes and power.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Uh, yes it does. Going to Mars would require an enormous quantity of scarce resources. I assume you know what "scarce" means? That means those resources are limited, and if they weren't used to fund an expedition to Mars they could be used to fund cancer research.

[/ QUOTE ]
This may not be true unless you look at it like an accountant.

The moon landings were inspirational to many just because of what they were. Amongst everything else they inspired people to study science and they inspired the creation of more of those 'scarce' resources.

Cost benefit/analysis on the other hand inspires nobody (except those who worship forms) and inhibits rather than encourages great science.

Your political point has much justification but I thought we were trying to avoid politics /images/graemlins/grin.gif

chez

[madnak]

What you're talking about is productivity. An increase in productivity is a benefit to be weighed against the costs.

And yes, we are, that just pushed a few of my buttons. I'm sorry.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
What you're talking about is productivity. An increase in productivity is a benefit to be weighed against the costs.

And yes, we are, that just pushed a few of my buttons. I'm sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, so the moon landings arguably increased scarce resources not reduced them.

The problem remains that there's no means of performing the cost/benefit analysis.

chez

[madnak]

Well, there have to be judgment calls. But the ultimate value of the research should be considered.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
The moon landings were inspirational to many just because of what they were

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't a cure for cancer be inspiring on a similar level?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, there have to be judgment calls. But the ultimate value of the research should be considered.

[/ QUOTE ]
considered by people as a matter of interest sure, why not but how can you make any use of it in making cost/benefit decisions?

maybe the space program will inspire the genius who cracks the problem of unlimited, clean, cheap energy hundreds of years before it would otherwise be cracked.

maybe it will inspire billions of people a tiny bit generating trillions in productivity.

maybe it will lead to the end of the world.

how would you measure the ultimate value?

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The moon landings were inspirational to many just because of what they were

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't a cure for cancer be inspiring on a similar level?

[/ QUOTE ]
I dunno, do you?

It wouldn't inspire me at all though it might save my life and the lives of those I love, which would be very nice.

Any analysis of which is more worthwile is just a matter of personal preference. If you want everyone to have their say then what you need is some form of democratic decision.

chez

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
considered by people as a matter of interest sure, why not but how can you make any use of it in making cost/benefit decisions?

maybe the space program will inspire the genius who cracks the problem of unlimited, clean, cheap energy hundreds of years before it would otherwise be cracked.

maybe it will inspire billions of people a tiny bit generating trillions in productivity.

maybe it will lead to the end of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't be results-oriented. The money should go where it's most likely to have the strongest positive impact, plain and simple. Of course the actual outcome is going to be unpredictable to a degree. Any avenue of research could be a dead end, and any avenue of research could lead to innovation. The question is which avenues have the greatest potential.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't be results-oriented. The money should go where it's most likely to have the strongest positive impact, plain and simple.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not being results oriented. Rather its avoiding the managment fallacy that because they can only manage what they can measure then there's some point in managing a measure that has no validity.

No-one can agree on whats likely to have the strongest positive impact. Its just a matter of individual preference so the least worst method would be something democratic.

chez

[madnak]

Why democratic? Are you saying everyone is equally qualified to evaluate the impact of a project?

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't be results-oriented. The money should go where it's most likely to have the strongest positive impact, plain and simple.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not being results oriented. Rather its avoiding the managment fallacy that because they can only manage what they can measure then there's some point in managing a measure that has no validity.

No-one can agree on whats likely to have the strongest positive impact. Its just a matter of individual preference so the least worst method would be something democratic.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Or people could invest their own money into whatever they deem inspirational or valueable. Bill Gates can donate to Cancer Research while Paul Allen can donate to Space Missions. Democracy in the dollar.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't be results-oriented. The money should go where it's most likely to have the strongest positive impact, plain and simple.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not being results oriented. Rather its avoiding the managment fallacy that because they can only manage what they can measure then there's some point in managing a measure that has no validity.

No-one can agree on whats likely to have the strongest positive impact. Its just a matter of individual preference so the least worst method would be something democratic.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Or people could invest their own money into whatever they deem inspirational or valueable. Bill Gates can donate to Cancer Research while Paul Allen can donate to Space Missions. Democracy in the dollar.

[/ QUOTE ]
The problem is not political. Anyone or anything with the money can do whatever suits them best. That's nothing to do with the problem of being unable to perform a cost/benefit analysis.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Why democratic? Are you saying everyone is equally qualified to evaluate the impact of a project?

[/ QUOTE ]
If somone is able to tell what other people want (i.e what will inspire them most) then you could save the trouble of voting as you know what the result will be. Same with political elections.

However, if someone tells you they know what others want then they are usually lying or mistaken.

chez

[TomCollins]

Cost benefits analysis are rarely perfect. If you cannot do a cost benefit anylsis, chances are you are throwing money down a rathole.

It's based on educated guesses. A lot of times, you start working on one research project, and something unrelated and much more useful comes from it. Private industry does this all the time. Google has employees dedicate time to independent research and has come up with some good ideas. HP and 3M have similar programs. These companies have to try to use cost-benefit analysis of such projects, as they take away from an employees productivity towards other projects. They often have the side benefits of boosting morale and sometimes lead to incredibly brilliant results that no one could have predicted.

Why this has to be publicly funded or democratic is quite confusing, and probably better suited for the politics forum. Private industry is held more accoubtable for actually producing something, as they cannot take funds from the public whenever they see fit.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Cost benefits analysis are rarely perfect. If you cannot do a cost benefit anylsis, chances are you are throwing money down a rathole.

It's based on educated guesses. A lot of times, you start working on one research project, and something unrelated and much more useful comes from it. Private industry does this all the time. Google has employees dedicate time to independent research and has come up with some good ideas. HP and 3M have similar programs. These companies have to try to use cost-benefit analysis of such projects, as they take away from an employees productivity towards other projects. They often have the side benefits of boosting morale and sometimes lead to incredibly brilliant results that no one could have predicted.

Why this has to be publicly funded or democratic is quite confusing, and probably better suited for the politics forum. Private industry is held more accoubtable for actually producing something, as they cannot take funds from the public whenever they see fit.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you've misunderstood the point. Capitalism of which I'm a big fan, is founded on the premise that experts are unable to tell others what's best for them.

If we believed that a group of experts in a room could work out what was best for us then we would all be socialists.

chez