[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again, nobody disputes that government funding has produced results. That *still* does not prove that it's the *best* method. You don't see how I can say private funding would be better? I posted a detailed argument about how private funding is better in efficiency, objectivity, and morality. Can you at least offer a counter argument before demanding more?
[/ QUOTE ]
Where?
[/ QUOTE ]
Here.
[ QUOTE ]
All you keep doing is saying that I haven't proven that the current way is better than your fantasy land. Like I said to boro, I think it's up to you to prove the advantages of your system.
[/ QUOTE ]
Nothing new can be better than the status quo. An interesting default stance for a self-proclaimed "scientist."
The "proof" you seek to prove that one system is better than another would probably not convince you, because you already have a fixed idea of what is "better". The thing is, your personal idea of what's "adequate" funding or "better" results is immaterial. Government funding very well might produce more raw output than a 100% privately-funded system. But guess what? If that were the case, it would merely show that the government system was wasting resources on things that people might use, but don't necessarily value more than other things that could have been done with those resources. Sure, scientists love it because it's "better" - they get to keep working on whatever they want without having to subject their work to the judgement of the market.