The Doctor Posted 13 August 2016 Share Posted 13 August 2016 1 minute ago, Webbo said: By that argument, politicians know more about what a vote winner is than scientists. And given few actually bother with science, and evidence as a whole tbf - too much of a policy-based-evidence attitude around; choosing instead to appeal to other opinions rather than courting the geek vote, their actions would suggest that science and research isn't a vote winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 13 August 2016 Share Posted 13 August 2016 3 minutes ago, The Doctor said: And given few actually bother with science, and evidence as a whole tbf - too much of a policy-based-evidence attitude around; choosing instead to appeal to other opinions rather than courting the geek vote, their actions would suggest that science and research isn't a vote winner. What policy based evidence? We've been in the EU for 40 years. What experience has anyone got that proves the UK won't fund science? You're basing your theory on a prejudiced asumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted 13 August 2016 Share Posted 13 August 2016 6 minutes ago, Webbo said: What policy based evidence? We've been in the EU for 40 years. What experience has anyone got that proves the UK won't fund science? You're basing your theory on a prejudiced asumption. As in deciding policy then cherry picking evidence to support it - the David Nutt sacking being a prime example, but it's endemic Well for one domestic R&D funding in the UK as a proportion of gdp is the lowest of any G8 nation: http://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2015/mar/13/science-vital-uk-spending-research-gdp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 13 August 2016 Share Posted 13 August 2016 13 minutes ago, The Doctor said: As in deciding policy then cherry picking evidence to support it - the David Nutt sacking being a prime example, but it's endemic Well for one domestic R&D funding in the UK as a proportion of gdp is the lowest of any G8 nation: http://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2015/mar/13/science-vital-uk-spending-research-gdp That article says it's behind the average for the G8 and that's on top of European funding . All departments faced cuts but we're talking about European funding so that's not relevant. There's no reason why we can't stay in the European scheme if we choose. I believe that Swiss , Norwegian and even Israeli scientists receive funding from the European scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted 13 August 2016 Share Posted 13 August 2016 50 minutes ago, Webbo said: That article says it's behind the average for the G8 and that's on top of European funding . All departments faced cuts but we're talking about European funding so that's not relevant. There's no reason why we can't stay in the European scheme if we choose. I believe that Swiss , Norwegian and even Israeli scientists receive funding from the European scheme. We're talking about post EU funding - the reason to take a gloomy view on the prospecta of domestic funding replacing the eu funding is because domestic funding has been so poor. Well, joining the efta needs the consent of all the members in it, and Norway has said it's not certain to let the UK in... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 13 August 2016 Share Posted 13 August 2016 I can't disprove an assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted 13 August 2016 Share Posted 13 August 2016 1 minute ago, Webbo said: I can't disprove an assumption. The only assumptions here are yours - that somehow years of decreasing domestic funding and unhealthy attitudes towards science from successive governments will be reversed with a click of the fingers; and that everyone will be falling head over heels to give us everything we want. But, a rational man proportions his views in relation to the evidence, and the evidence we've got is a %GDP domestic funding lower than that of any G8 nation, or the average of the EU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 13 August 2016 Share Posted 13 August 2016 3 minutes ago, The Doctor said: The only assumptions here are yours - that somehow years of decreasing domestic funding and unhealthy attitudes towards science from successive governments will be reversed with a click of the fingers; and that everyone will be falling head over heels to give us everything we want. But, a rational man proportions his views in relation to the evidence, and the evidence we've got is a %GDP domestic funding lower than that of any G8 nation, or the average of the EU. The article you posted said it was below average for the G8 not the lowest. You're assuming that the govt won't fund science after 2020, unless your science is astrology I don't see how you can know that. I can't be bothered to keep repeating myself so I'm out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted 13 August 2016 Share Posted 13 August 2016 At the very top of the article... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GazzinderFox Posted 13 August 2016 Share Posted 13 August 2016 4 hours ago, Dr The Singh said: Love the name Gazzinder!!! Thanks, I think everybody should have an English/Indian hybrid name! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GazzinderFox Posted 13 August 2016 Share Posted 13 August 2016 3 hours ago, The Doctor said: hardly sulking - still think it was a terrible idea to even offer it as a referendum when the years of papers using euro-myths to fill inches means precious few people were able to make an informed decision, but I'm making the best of it - that is, getting excited for the anarchy and mayhem; just like I will be if Trump wins. Lot of scientists disagree with you on it being a vote winner, but I'm sure you know more about their field and it's perception than they do... Ignoring that MEPs are elected, have these people we voted into power done anything to warrant having faith in them on some issues? Please, don't even get me started on chuffing MEPs. Ignoring them would be the best thing we could do for this thread... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GazzinderFox Posted 13 August 2016 Share Posted 13 August 2016 Also, I'm afraid we have to trust our elected government wether they happen to be presenting an argument we agree with or not. They are fallible human beings just like the rest of us, and if they make a mess of this it is down to us to make sure that they are held to account at the next election. What reason do we have to trust anybody? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted 13 August 2016 Share Posted 13 August 2016 9 minutes ago, GazzinderFox said: Also, I'm afraid we have to trust our elected government wether they happen to be presenting an argument we agree with or not. They are fallible human beings just like the rest of us, and if they make a mess of this it is down to us to make sure that they are held to account at the next election. What reason do we have to trust anybody? No, we don't have to trust them. We have to put up with them until the next election, but we don't have to have faith that they'll get it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GazzinderFox Posted 13 August 2016 Share Posted 13 August 2016 9 minutes ago, The Doctor said: No, we don't have to trust them. We have to put up with them until the next election, but we don't have to have faith that they'll get it right. Well I guess that's your perogative. A pessimist as they say is never disappointed. It just appears as though there are a lot of people out there that want them to fail, just because they happened to lose the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl the Llama Posted 13 August 2016 Share Posted 13 August 2016 38 minutes ago, GazzinderFox said: Also, I'm afraid we have to trust our elected government wether they happen to be presenting an argument we agree with or not. They are fallible human beings just like the rest of us, and if they make a mess of this it is down to us to make sure that they are held to account at the next election. What reason do we have to trust anybody? Are you saying that MEPs and "unelected, faceless, autocrats[sic]" are not "fallible human beings" and that we don't "have to trust whether they happen to be presenting an argument we agree with or not"? Seems to me like you're picking and choosing your definition of democracy and indeed human status based on the arbitrary land borders the politician participating in it hails from. Also why do you say they're faceless? You may not have taken the time to learn about them, what their political beliefs are or the administrative and often apolitical functions they perform but that doesn't mean they aren't human and lack a face. Your use of dehumanising rhetoric is disturbing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 14 August 2016 Share Posted 14 August 2016 4 hours ago, Webbo said: The article you posted said it was below average for the G8 not the lowest. You're assuming that the govt won't fund science after 2020, unless your science is astrology I don't see how you can know that. I can't be bothered to keep repeating myself so I'm out. I guess it comes down to faith, Webbo. You have it, Doc, myself, and a great deal of the UK STEM community do not. And I think that lack of faith is justified by past behaviour and attitude. Science simply isn't a priority for UK governments (of both stripes) in the way that it should be. Mind you, when it comes to this area I'm a pretty demanding person - if it were up to me there would already be a permanent orbital space station housing at least a few dozen people, as well as one already there or being built further afield. Humanity got from nothing to the Moon in 9 years - such big stuff CAN be done with the right will there. But instead we're gambling with our future with petty, insignificant squabbles. Yeah, I know I sound like a pretentious knob saying this, but there you go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted 14 August 2016 Share Posted 14 August 2016 9 hours ago, GazzinderFox said: Well I guess that's your perogative. A pessimist as they say is never disappointed. It just appears as though there are a lot of people out there that want them to fail, just because they happened to lose the argument. Not really pessimistic to expect that research funding is going to suffer, its very much grounded realism - we've got the lowest funding %GDP of any G8 nation, and below the average of the OECD, eurozone and EU28; while being net beneficiaries of EU research funding. Poor domestic funding and good foreign funding, with the foreign funding being removed? what in your view is a realistic interpretation of that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GazzinderFox Posted 14 August 2016 Share Posted 14 August 2016 18 hours ago, Carl the Llama said: Are you saying that MEPs and "unelected, faceless, autocrats[sic]" are not "fallible human beings" and that we don't "have to trust whether they happen to be presenting an argument we agree with or not"? Seems to me like you're picking and choosing your definition of democracy and indeed human status based on the arbitrary land borders the politician participating in it hails from. Also why do you say they're faceless? You may not have taken the time to learn about them, what their political beliefs are or the administrative and often apolitical functions they perform but that doesn't mean they aren't human and lack a face. Your use of dehumanising rhetoric is disturbing. Sorry Carl I wasn't for a moment trying to suggest that EU commissioners weren't fully human (although I'm yet to see complete proof that they are). My use of the word faceless was to point out that 95% of people have no idea who these people are. They don't have a public profile and therefore it's very hard for even people with an interest in politics to gauge whether or not they are doing a good or bad job. For instance I had no idea who the commissioner from the EU was and after 10 minutes reading his bio I'm still none the wiser. The EU, and I'm sure you will agree with me on this one, has done appallingly at 'telling it's story' and creating a narritive that actual human beings can understand. It's not helped by the long held assumption that the commissioners don't really have to account to anybody, although I concede that this improved since since the corruption scandals of the late 90's when the entire commission was forced to resign! I find your Darth Vadian turn of phraseology equally disturbing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GazzinderFox Posted 14 August 2016 Share Posted 14 August 2016 9 hours ago, The Doctor said: Not really pessimistic to expect that research funding is going to suffer, its very much grounded realism - we've got the lowest funding %GDP of any G8 nation, and below the average of the OECD, eurozone and EU28; while being net beneficiaries of EU research funding. Poor domestic funding and good foreign funding, with the foreign funding being removed? what in your view is a realistic interpretation of that? I guess we'll have to wait and see won't we. Brexit could be the game changer you have been patiently waiting for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted 14 August 2016 Share Posted 14 August 2016 8 minutes ago, GazzinderFox said: I guess we'll have to wait and see won't we. Brexit could be the game changer you have been patiently waiting for. Us winning the title last season is more likely than that. Still waiting for what the realistic take on losing funding and becoming reliant on an institution that has provided active opposition is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GazzinderFox Posted 14 August 2016 Share Posted 14 August 2016 On 13 August 2016 at 20:08, The Doctor said: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GazzinderFox Posted 14 August 2016 Share Posted 14 August 2016 Sorry for the random quote, the forums playing up I think. -------------------------------- Do you really think that the odds are 5000-1 on that? C'mon that is pessimism. I think a realistic take is that money that was spent on Science funding as part of the EU budget will still be spent on science as part of a UK budget. I think that's 'realistic'. Especially as the government are making the right noises at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted 14 August 2016 Share Posted 14 August 2016 10 hours ago, GazzinderFox said: Sorry for the random quote, the forums playing up I think. -------------------------------- Do you really think that the odds are 5000-1 on that? C'mon that is pessimism. I think a realistic take is that money that was spent on Science funding as part of the EU budget will still be spent on science as part of a UK budget. I think that's 'realistic'. Especially as the government are making the right noises at the moment. Which would still mean research funding would be down, far from the game changer. Definitely over 5000-1; I wouldn't even bother to offer odds in it - the game changer I would want is domestic funding doubling, having us top the G8 nations: on top of the EU funding we receive. For that to happen post brexit we've got to add 150% of what we get back from the EU research budget; and then still double current funding (rather than playing fast and loose with the stats). There's also the problem that so much growth in British research is down to pan-European collaborations which would be under threat as a result. Do I trust the government to maintain the current levels of funding (from all sources)? Not really. Do I trust them to up it to the level it should be? Definitely not. If they've shown no inclination to up funding now, exiting the EU won't make a difference on that regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl the Llama Posted 14 August 2016 Share Posted 14 August 2016 4 hours ago, GazzinderFox said: Sorry Carl I wasn't for a moment trying to suggest that EU commissioners weren't fully human (although I'm yet to see complete proof that they are). My use of the word faceless was to point out that 95% of people have no idea who these people are. They don't have a public profile and therefore it's very hard for even people with an interest in politics to gauge whether or not they are doing a good or bad job. For instance I had no idea who the commissioner from the EU was and after 10 minutes reading his bio I'm still none the wiser. The EU, and I'm sure you will agree with me on this one, has done appallingly at 'telling it's story' and creating a narritive that actual human beings can understand. It's not helped by the long held assumption that the commissioners don't really have to account to anybody, although I concede that this improved since since the corruption scandals of the late 90's when the entire commission was forced to resign! I find your Darth Vadian turn of phraseology equally disturbing! I'm not sure it's entirely the EU's fault that people don't know what or who when it comes to EU functions and figureheads. The whole infrastructure of it is necessarily complicated but all the necessary information is freely available on the official website for anyone who wishes to have a look at it to see what balances and countermeasures are in place to ensure that no one institution has unanswerable power and that the interests of all EU member states are served as best as possible. I would say the lion's share of the blame for ignorance on the issue lies with people's natural disinclination to research it themselves and with the scandalously transparent yet successful attempts by certain popular media outlets to demonise the scheme at every opportunity and use it as chief scapegoat all our woes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr The Singh Posted 15 August 2016 Share Posted 15 August 2016 On 13/08/2016 at 18:32, GazzinderFox said: Thanks, I think everybody should have an English/Indian hybrid name! My south Indian brothers would not be able to associate 'inder' in your name. It's a Punjabi coloquel thing. interms of hybrid names, I can understand why anyone would call there child Sharon deep/kit/preet etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.