RE: [Vo]:Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Hi Lennart I just want to respond to one of your comments. I do not know who make the statement about your job. I assume it is some kind of generic statement and not directed to your performance. I know little about what you did for the state. In many cases the job could just have been done under the umbrella of a private organization. It was not my intention to single myself out, to personally complain that I have been accused of being a drain on the economy. Last December at my retirement gathering my manager, who 12 months earlier had taken me to the woodshed to chastise me over a misunderstanding that he did not first attempt to get a clarification from me before jumping to erroneous conclusions, publicly stated that I my efforts had saved their bacon. I know my worth. Nevertheless, I also knew it was time to get out. I am now happily working full-time on a self-imposed task of my own choosing, what I call the Kepler Project. I'm working on it at my own retirement funded expense. This is something I've wanted to focus on for some time. Regarding privatization, before retiring one of my final government tasks was to help manage high volume scanning of traffic accident and title application forms. Hundreds and thousands of documents came in every day. I do not see how privatizing such operations would be any less of an economic drain on the economy, nor would it be any more efficient. The government still has to contract out and pay money to some private organization, typically the lowest bidder, to perform the tasks. Unfortunately, you end up getting what you pay for. Privatized government work contracted out to the lowest bidder tends to breed the kind of quality work that reflects the fact that it is being performed by underpaid workers with minimal training. It's been my experience that government employees end up having to fix the mistakes for which a lowest bid under-paid privatized worker force missed - and, of course, at added cost to the taxpayer. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
I think you are right that it will be some time before we reduce taxes. I will take a step back and say 'no personal taxes'. Yes, we need some government and the best form of taxes is VAT in my opinion. I think we went from talking about how to finance research on this tread. I cannot agree with any of the established party. Ideologically I can hear pieces I like from both sides. However, it is always just talk. Therefore I can see positive in the Scott Walker interview. He takes a stance and he does not back down. I am not making any statement about his persona as I have even less knowledge about him than I have about Trump. I do not know who make the statement about your job. I assume it is some kind of generic statement and not directed to your performance. I know little about what you did for the state. In many cases the job could just have been done under the umbrella of a private organization. I cannot say that being the case with your job but I will assume so for the sake of my argument. Then I think it had been better if the state had let the job be performed by a private entity instead. My reasoning requires a little book but in short. 1. We know that changes are coming and they come faster and faster. 2. We know that large organizations (the government being larger than large) has problem to adopt to new requirements. 3. In a way that makes government (and trade unions) the most conservative organizations there is. 4. You spent 36 years in a job and that was norm a couple of generations ago. Not today we need to change several times during our career because jobs disappear and jobs are changing and new opportunities must be nursed. 5. We also have tremendous capacity to handle information and cooperate. 6. My conclusion (there are more reasons but to keep it short) is that small flexible organizations that can work together with other small organizations one project at a time is far more effective than trying to restructure large overhead inflexible organizations into new short lived projects. I agree that rich organizations or individuals have far more influence on how government is run than they deserve. In addition they have ulterior motives. Trade unions and Donald trump contributes nothing to the political process as I see it. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: I agree with no taxes. I wouldn't keep my hopes high on that matter being addressed to your satisfaction. Keep in mind what Benjamin Franklin had to say on the subject: In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/benjaminfr129817.html As a matter of disclosure, and just so you know where I'm coming from: As a democrat (mostly) and a liberal at heart I find myself much more aligned with Mr. Rothwell's recent commentary. On a related matter, as a recently retired Wisconsin state employee having worked for more than 36 years in service of Wisconsin tax payers it concerns me deeply that there seems to have been a carefully crafted relentless campaign funded by very rich and powerful conservative figure heads who for the most part would prefer to obfuscate their actual intentions. Many of these obscure groups seem to be doing their best to imply that my 36 years of services, as well as the services of my colleagues had been, in truth, a drain on the economy. Unfortunately, too many appear have actually bought into such a belief. See what Scott Walker back when he was first running for governor of Wisconsin said he would do as recorded in a private meeting with some of his financial backers, including a billionaire donor in attendance. One has to ask, why did Mr. Walker not reveal to the public what he privately but quite openly revealed to his rich financial backers concerning the matter of what he planned on doing after he got elected. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXPCl-1a9ZM We need a healthy government, one that is accountable to the people, not a government that is in the process of being hijacked by rich and powerful corporations that don't have to follow the same financial campaign rules individuals must abide by. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Hi Vincent, I certainly tried to say that I am not talking about any particular job. There are always details, which are hard to communicate correct. The person handling a task/job can obviously know such details and for someone looking in from a distance it is always easy to rationalize the big strokes. So in general I really do not have an opinion about what you did for the state. Your assessment of how your latest task could or could not have had any advantage if handled by the state or a private entity is therefore not possible to discuss. You know and I do not. I agree that the lowest bidder idea has flaws - regardless of if used by a private or government organization. I am not asking you but to me a series of questions will appear when I hear about your task. Why was it required to process so much data, why was that not done before, was it worth the cost, was there other ways to achieve the same result, who is interested in paying for the result etc. etc. I am not going to examine your task so please, no answers. Just that those questions and long series of other connected questions need to be understood before finding other solutions- if there even are other solutions. I am glad you have found another project that you do because it is interesting and brings you joy. My experience is that one produce a better more effective result when having such working conditions. However, to connect what this tread was about from the beginning,; you have a freedom created by a guaranteed income, you are accountable (if you succeed in your endeavor you reap the benefit and if not you will have lost the funds and the time you invested. Having said that I think there is another win than the economical and therefore I can imagine that you have no downside. The accomplishment of finding an answer is a reward that often overshadow any economical downside. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Hi Lennart I just want to respond to one of your comments. I do not know who make the statement about your job. I assume it is some kind of generic statement and not directed to your performance. I know little about what you did for the state. In many cases the job could just have been done under the umbrella of a private organization. It was not my intention to single myself out, to personally complain that I have been accused of being a drain on the economy. Last December at my retirement gathering my manager, who 12 months earlier had taken me to the woodshed to chastise me over a misunderstanding that he did not first attempt to get a clarification from me before jumping to erroneous conclusions, publicly stated that I my efforts had saved their bacon. I know my worth. Nevertheless, I also knew it was time to get out. I am now happily working full-time on a self-imposed task of my own choosing, what I call the Kepler Project. I'm working on it at my own retirement funded expense. This is something I've wanted to focus on for some time. Regarding privatization, before retiring one of my final government tasks was to help manage high volume scanning of traffic accident and title application forms. Hundreds and thousands of documents came in every day. I do not see how privatizing such operations would be any less of an economic drain on the economy, nor would it be any more efficient. The government still has to contract out and pay money to some private organization, typically the lowest bidder, to perform the tasks. Unfortunately, you end up getting what you pay for. Privatized government work contracted out to the lowest bidder tends to breed the kind of quality work that reflects the fact that it is being performed by underpaid workers with minimal training. It's been my experience that government employees end up having to fix the mistakes for which a lowest bid under-paid privatized worker force missed - and, of course, at added cost to the taxpayer. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Jed, the logic you provide is that because government has initiated or built large projects they have subsidized Alfred Nobel's invention of dynamite. That is a logic used by the communist. No, it is the logic of an historian. It is a fact that the U.S. government was the largest user of explosives from 1860 to 1875, first in the Civil War and then in the Transcontinental Railroad and other massive construction projects. The Railroad was the largest construction project in history up until then, and it required fantastic amounts of explosives. It was followed by many other railroad construction projects, which also required explosives on the scale of a war. Governments use explosives more than other institutions because they run armies and navies. This is why the U.S. government invented nuclear weapons, and spent trillions of dollars on them. There is no question Alfred Nobel's money came mainly from governments spending, especially at first. Later, mining and other industries began using a lot of dynamite. You wrote before that Nobel made money but he had nothing to do with government. That is wrong. His money had EVERYTHING to do with government. Government created the demand for his product, and it was his main customer. There have been other inventors whose work was not so directly involved in government, such as Edison. You happened to pick Nobel, whose invention would probably not exist without government demand. My point is that those inventors i mentioned and many more i know less about, had freedom to do inventions and reap the benefit. Freedom is important, but no inventor could survive without government enforced patent protection. Abraham Lincoln wrote: [The patent laws] began in England in 1624, and in this country with the adoption of our Constitution. Before then any man [might] instantly use what another man had invented, so that the inventor had no special advantage from his own invention. The patent system changed this, secured to the inventor for a limited time exclusive use of his inventions, and thereby added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius in the discovery and production of new and useful things. Without the government, there would be no protection of inventions, so no inventions and no progress. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
The patent law has pro' and con's - it can be looked upon as good or bad. No the government did not make those laws. They executed a law for what people wanted and found fair practice. Today those laws are rather useless as they have grown so they no longer reflect what we want.. They are mostly an obstacle. On Jun 21, 2015 9:12 AM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Jed I am a stubborn guy but I think I have met someone more stubborn. I am not disputing your facts or that government has been customers of inventions. I am saying that freedom is personal.I am saying that great results come from people (not organization). We differ in that I thing anonymous public resources is a bad method to improve anything while you think that government is essential for us in most regards. In my opinion we should do with a minimum of government and let the individual make his own choices. All part of a government should be torn apart every so often to justify their be or not. Now we build and add more resources to the government and the personal freedom is disappearing. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Jed, the logic you provide is that because government has initiated or built large projects they have subsidized Alfred Nobel's invention of dynamite. That is a logic used by the communist. No, it is the logic of an historian. It is a fact that the U.S. government was the largest user of explosives from 1860 to 1875, first in the Civil War and then in the Transcontinental Railroad and other massive construction projects. The Railroad was the largest construction project in history up until then, and it required fantastic amounts of explosives. It was followed by many other railroad construction projects, which also required explosives on the scale of a war. Governments use explosives more than other institutions because they run armies and navies. This is why the U.S. government invented nuclear weapons, and spent trillions of dollars on them. There is no question Alfred Nobel's money came mainly from governments spending, especially at first. Later, mining and other industries began using a lot of dynamite. You wrote before that Nobel made money but he had nothing to do with government. That is wrong. His money had EVERYTHING to do with government. Government created the demand for his product, and it was his main customer. There have been other inventors whose work was not so directly involved in government, such as Edison. You happened to pick Nobel, whose invention would probably not exist without government demand. My point is that those inventors i mentioned and many more i know less about, had freedom to do inventions and reap the benefit. Freedom is important, but no inventor could survive without government enforced patent protection. Abraham Lincoln wrote: [The patent laws] began in England in 1624, and in this country with the adoption of our Constitution. Before then any man [might] instantly use what another man had invented, so that the inventor had no special advantage from his own invention. The patent system changed this, secured to the inventor for a limited time exclusive use of his inventions, and thereby added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius in the discovery and production of new and useful things. Without the government, there would be no protection of inventions, so no inventions and no progress. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Jed, the logic you provide is that because government has initiated or built large projects they have subsidized Alfred Nobel's invention of dynamite. That is a logic used by the communist. Communism has some point in theory. Practically it does not work and the reason is that personal freedom is very important. People have taken enormous risk and discomfort for their personal freedom. This whole nation is based on peoples lack of freedom in Europe. Religious, academic or enterprise freedom are just branches of the same tree. My point is that those inventors i mentioned and many more i know less about, had freedom to do inventions and reap the benefit. Accountability was a cornerstone for them. It is required today also. It has been many inventors less fortunate than the examples I gave you. They had to face the consequences of their failure. The problem with large piles of resources (money) owned by us all, is that nobody feels responsible. To skim government funds is ok. It often is justified with 'it does not hurt anybody'. What they mean is that it does not impact anybody direct and the state is so anynomous that nobody cares. Lack of personal freedom and accountability does create corruption. Your other statements about how government has provided has some merit. The reason is mostly that a leader in the government has seen a need and then have been strong enough to push that idea to fruition. Unfortunately some copycat with a personal agenda uses a good thing as an example to justify government taking on more and more. That has never worked and it will backfire. I have seen it first hand. Swed e n went through a period of ever increasing governmental involvement. The total result was bad. In some fields it succeeded. It ended with a big time correction in the 90s. I think you make the mistake of identifying the government as a person. It is not. In management literature there is a say 'organizations cannot make result people can'. On Jun 20, 2015 8:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: I agree that dynamite was used by many. Many is not the issue. Dynamite and other explosives were used mainly by governments, or in projects paid for by governments. Nearly every dollar that Nobel earned came from governments. There were no other legitimate customers for gigantic explosions. Dynamite sticks were used by farmers and other in the late 19th and early 20th century, but this was on a far smaller scale. However, I tried to say thhose guys took the risk, they made it into a product they benefited from. The guys who took the risk were the workers on the Transcontinental Railroad and Wells Fargo that transported it from the east coast to California. There were major explosions in ships and warehouses in Panama and California, and many explosions during construction. Fortunately, Nobel licensed his techniques starting in 1867, and this greatly reduced the accidents. See: http://railroad.lindahall.org/essays/black-powder.html The explosives industry would not exist were it not for construction projects such as that, and later armies and navies using tons of explosives in warfare. The Transcontinental Railroad workers used more explosives on a daily basis than the U.S. Army did a few years earlier during the Civil War.
Re: [Vo]:Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Jed I am a stubborn guy but I think I have met someone more stubborn. I am not disputing your facts or that government has been customers of inventions. I am saying that freedom is personal.I am saying that great results come from people (not organization). We differ in that I thing anonymous public resources is a bad method to improve anything while you think that government is essential for us in most regards. In my opinion we should do with a minimum of government and let the individual make his own choices. All part of a government should be torn apart every so often to justify their be or not. Now we build and add more resources to the government and the personal freedom is disappearing. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Jed, the logic you provide is that because government has initiated or built large projects they have subsidized Alfred Nobel's invention of dynamite. That is a logic used by the communist. No, it is the logic of an historian. It is a fact that the U.S. government was the largest user of explosives from 1860 to 1875, first in the Civil War and then in the Transcontinental Railroad and other massive construction projects. The Railroad was the largest construction project in history up until then, and it required fantastic amounts of explosives. It was followed by many other railroad construction projects, which also required explosives on the scale of a war. Governments use explosives more than other institutions because they run armies and navies. This is why the U.S. government invented nuclear weapons, and spent trillions of dollars on them. There is no question Alfred Nobel's money came mainly from governments spending, especially at first. Later, mining and other industries began using a lot of dynamite. You wrote before that Nobel made money but he had nothing to do with government. That is wrong. His money had EVERYTHING to do with government. Government created the demand for his product, and it was his main customer. There have been other inventors whose work was not so directly involved in government, such as Edison. You happened to pick Nobel, whose invention would probably not exist without government demand. My point is that those inventors i mentioned and many more i know less about, had freedom to do inventions and reap the benefit. Freedom is important, but no inventor could survive without government enforced patent protection. Abraham Lincoln wrote: [The patent laws] began in England in 1624, and in this country with the adoption of our Constitution. Before then any man [might] instantly use what another man had invented, so that the inventor had no special advantage from his own invention. The patent system changed this, secured to the inventor for a limited time exclusive use of his inventions, and thereby added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius in the discovery and production of new and useful things. Without the government, there would be no protection of inventions, so no inventions and no progress. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Pardon my intervention. Regarding the comment: In my opinion we should do with a minimum of government and let the individual make his own choices. IMHO, we need maintain a delicate balance of free-spirited independence combined with occasional government intervention. I suspect the struggle between these two opposing philosophies will never end. That’s probably a good thing. In the meantime, since Donald Trump has now entered the republican race for leader of the free world, I guess America really does have an exemplary advocate of a self-made individual who truly believes his own personal choices are the best choices America should make. Why? Because Trump has told us he’s “…really rich…that’s the kind of thinking you need for this country. http://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-im-rich-and-im-running-for-president/ Go Trump Go! I wanna be rich too, just like you! If you promise to make my taxes go away I’ll vote for you. Hey! It worked for Scott Walker! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
I agree with you Vincent. There needs to be a balance. I think we lost the balance. IMHO as you say that is because the government is growing without restrictions. At a time when more than 50% 0f the people are dependent on the governments paycheck it will be really hard to reduce government. The result of that is that at some point in time the critical balance is in unbalance so a large enough fraction will change the situation over night. Not a good solution. I guess you meant to be ironic about Trump. To me trump is a said persona. I only know what I see from his public appearance. Sad. He gives the business world a bad rep.IMHO. Just by pushing he is rich. He was in bankrupt position a few years ago, but due to the fact he had scratch enough backs he was given a new chance with very little accountability but a lot of 'too big to fail'. Already his mantra 'you are fired' is awful. I certainly would not vote for him even if both parties nominated him. His statement 'I am rich so . . is a little fun as most people has another take I want to be rich so . . .. I agree with no taxes. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Pardon my intervention. Regarding the comment: In my opinion we should do with a minimum of government and let the individual make his own choices. IMHO, we need maintain a delicate balance of free-spirited independence combined with occasional government intervention. I suspect the struggle between these two opposing philosophies will never end. That’s probably a good thing. In the meantime, since Donald Trump has now entered the republican race for leader of the free world, I guess America really does have an exemplary advocate of a self-made individual who truly believes his own personal choices are the best choices America should make. Why? Because Trump has told us he’s “…really rich…that’s the kind of thinking you need for this country. http://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-im-rich-and-im-running-for-president/ Go Trump Go! I wanna be rich too, just like you! If you promise to make my taxes go away I’ll vote for you. Hey! It worked for Scott Walker! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
maybe you make a point that government is good as challenging innovation by being the client. by making war, weapon, investing in transportation or energy infrastructure. It also funded direct research for me the scheme to subsidize production is the only problem, ands maybe only recently because planning research is now impossible. maybe is this just a phase change. Maybe as you say is it also that too much democratic control on that money put it in a wrong place, to defend installed lobbies, and not to create a revolution. the navy did more to LENR than the DoE 2015-06-21 4:57 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: OK Jed. If your opion is that you have theRIGHT opinion, then it is fruitless to discuss. Look, this is not about opinions. There are thousands of books about the history of technology and commerce in the U.S. I challenge you to cite a single one of them which denies that the federal government subsidized steam ships, railroads, and the others on my list. These are *facts*, and not disputed by any mainstream historian. Even large industries not directly subsidized got huge sums of government money. For example, the government did not directly subsidize Ford or General Motors in the 1920s, but it built billions of dollars worth of asphalt and concrete surface roads and later highways. Without these roads, automobiles would be useless. The government did not invent transistors or integrated circuits, but it was the first customer for them, and it spent billions of dollars on them for the military and for NASA. The price fell, reliability increased, and then they were introduced to consumer markets. The government always take over things , which can increase the government and then makes it disfuncti8nal. That might not be a viable opinion but it is mine. The government does not take over things. That is preposterous. It is just the opposite. The government did not take over the Transcontinental Railroad -- it paid for it, and then handed it over the privately held railroad companies, the Union Pacific and the Central Pacific. It did not take over aviation -- it paid for it and then handed it over to Pan Am and the other nascent air carriers. It did not take over the Internet. It invented it, paid for it, built it up, and then handed it over the telephone companies. Ditto the computer, the laser, jet aircraft, nuclear energy and just about everything else. I am a Swede. Alfred Nobel was also av Swede - no other similarities.. He was an inventor. He made money but he had nothing to do with government. WHAT? Who do you think paid for all that dynamite? What do you think they did with it? The first and biggest customer for nitroglycerin was the Transcontinental Railroad. It purchased thousands of tons, and made the industry out of nothing. Later, the biggest customers for dynamite and other modern explosives were the armies and navies of the world. The construction industry is also a major user of explosives. Government has heavily subsidized construction. It has paid for all infrastructure such as roads, highways, dams, large scale irrigation, bridges, subways, and so on, all of which depend on explosives. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Jed I will not try to debate the issue as we stand so far away from each other. In my opinion there are very few times governmental control and management has been successful. I am sorry, but this is not a matter of opinion. Read the history of technology from 1800 to the present and you will see that government in Europe and the U.S. played absolutely essential roles either paying for or directly developing nearly every major technology. Go through through the list and you will see. Look at: Canals, modern roads, railroads, telegraphs, steam engines, steam ships, artillery, steel ships, turbine engines, automobiles, highways, aviation and air traffic control, computers, nuclear energy, the laser, space exploration, the Internet, cold fusion . . . and just about all the others were either invented by government scientists such as Fleischmann, Pons, Storms and Miles, or paid for by government grants. Ocean going steamships, for example, were heavily subsidized by the British government in particular for decades before they become economically viable. The first telegraph between Baltimore and Washington DC was built entirely with government funding. Only later, after huge sums had been spent, did Western Union and other private ventures begin using the technology. The same thing happened with the Internet. In the U.S., railroads were developed at first by private industry, but the Transcontinental Railroad and other major leaps were heavily subsidized by federal government, and could not possibly have been built without giant subsidies and government guarantees. The railroads paid back all of these subsidies with interest, usually around 20 years after completing the lines, at a big profit to the government. If DoE made some good investment in technology that is fine but it does not mean anything in the discussion about how one get the most bang for the buck in research Since this has been true for nearly every major industrial scale technology for the last 215 years, I think we can draw conclusions. I think it would be insane to ignore this history. I will guarantee that eliminating the accountability will create no good results. Accountability should be relaxed for basic physics research, not eliminated. Failure should not be punished. Most scientific research fails. You talk about unfunded distrust in the government. You must be joking. You take the communication system as an example. While roads are in the somewhat OK I hope you can see the railroads are a big joke. Railroads in the U.S. have not been subsidized since the 1970s. Railroads compete with highways, which are subsidized with gasoline taxes. That gives an unfair advantage to trucks. If those taxes were allocate to railroads per ton of freight moved, railroads would be far more competitive. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: about subisides I find it is absurd t subsidize mass production. you don't make clipper sail boats progress by subsidizing transatlantic clippers. You are completely wrong about that. Clipper ships in the U.S. were a tremendous advance in sailing ship technology, and they came about largely because marine engineering improved in the late 18th and early 19th century. This happened because the basic science improved, mainly because the British and U.S. governments put a lot of money into it. Clipper ships would have been impossible without steam tugboats and modern harbors. They were not as maneuverable as older ships, so they had to be brought into harbor with steamboats. Steamboats and harbor improvements were invented and paid for by governments. As clipper ships advanced and reached their peak of perfection, they incorporated many features and improvements invented for ocean-going steam ships, especially hull construction techniques, such as the increased use of steel to replace wood. Steamships were heavily subsidized by governments from 1820 to around 1850. The sailing ship companies complained mightily about this in the newspapers and in Congress, saying it was interfering in free market capitalism -- which it was. Steel hull construction was heavily subsidized by governments mainly for navy vessels, or ironclads as they were called. The U.S. Navy built the first modern steam-powered steel warship, the Monitor, during the Civil War. Many others followed. It took a while for the civilian shipbuilding industry to catch up. The last sailing ships in the late 19th century were not clipper ships, but in any case they had steel hulls and many other features designed originally with government subsidies. you subsidize research, or an america's cup, to push new innovations, but you don't dump money in huge volume just hoping some of the cash will be used to improve the efficiency and not mostly to pay bonus. The government has never subsidized anything like the America's Cup! With every major technology of the last 215 years, governments have, in fact, poured in unimaginable sums of money. Adjusted for inflation, billions and billions of dollars of government funding were poured into the Transcontinental Railroad, as loans which were paid back with interest, just like today's DoE loans. Not only was public money poured in, the government handed over millions of acres of public land, for free, to the railroad. (By public land I mean land stolen from Native Americans.) we need crazy research to be fuded more, and what works well to be funded by market. The government has directly funded every major technology in U.S. history. It worked splendidly. Why do you think we should stop doing this? What has changed? I am a conservative. I believe in doing what has worked in the past, especially when there is no reason to think it will not work now. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
OK Jed. If your opion is that you have theRIGHT opinion, then it is fruitless to discuss. The government always take over things , which can increase the government and then makes it disfuncti8nal. That might not be a viable opinion but it is mine. I am a Swede. Alfred Nobel was also av Swede - no other similarities.. He was an inventor. He made money but he had nothing to do with government. At that time governments were weak. He rather played the governents for his own benefits. John Eriksson another Swede invented the screw propeller he had no government funds if you excude a contract with the US governents for Montior. Gustav Dahlen was a8nother inventor the solarvalve, the AGA cocker and many more. He built a business around his inventions. This is from my background, I am not as nationalistic as Nobel, so I use them as reference to how one person could make a difference. There was no government with any ambitions. There has never been. It will never be. Just that we have sold our right to make adifference to representatives. You think that is rogress. Well then I am fine with 0the WRONG opinion:) On Jun 20, 2015 6:28 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Jed I will not try to debate the issue as we stand so far away from each other. In my opinion there are very few times governmental control and management has been successful. I am sorry, but this is not a matter of opinion. Read the history of technology from 1800 to the present and you will see that government in Europe and the U.S. played absolutely essential roles either paying for or directly developing nearly every major technology. Go through through the list and you will see. Look at: Canals, modern roads, railroads, telegraphs, steam engines, steam ships, artillery, steel ships, turbine engines, automobiles, highways, aviation and air traffic control, computers, nuclear energy, the laser, space exploration, the Internet, cold fusion . . . and just about all the others were either invented by government scientists such as Fleischmann, Pons, Storms and Miles, or paid for by government grants. Ocean going steamships, for example, were heavily subsidized by the British government in particular for decades before they become economically viable. The first telegraph between Baltimore and Washington DC was built entirely with government funding. Only later, after huge sums had been spent, did Western Union and other private ventures begin using the technology. The same thing happened with the Internet. In the U.S., railroads were developed at first by private industry, but the Transcontinental Railroad and other major leaps were heavily subsidized by federal government, and could not possibly have been built without giant subsidies and government guarantees. The railroads paid back all of these subsidies with interest, usually around 20 years after completing the lines, at a big profit to the government. If DoE made some good investment in technology that is fine but it does not mean anything in the discussion about how one get the most bang for the buck in research Since this has been true for nearly every major industrial scale technology for the last 215 years, I think we can draw conclusions. I think it would be insane to ignore this history. I will guarantee that eliminating the accountability will create no good results. Accountability should be relaxed for basic physics research, not eliminated. Failure should not be punished. Most scientific research fails. You talk about unfunded distrust in the government. You must be joking. You take the communication system as an example. While roads are in the somewhat OK I hope you can see the railroads are a big joke. Railroads in the U.S. have not been subsidized since the 1970s. Railroads compete with highways, which are subsidized with gasoline taxes. That gives an unfair advantage to trucks. If those taxes were allocate to railroads per ton of freight moved, railroads would be far more competitive. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: I agree that dynamite was used by many. Many is not the issue. Dynamite and other explosives were used mainly by governments, or in projects paid for by governments. Nearly every dollar that Nobel earned came from governments. There were no other legitimate customers for gigantic explosions. Dynamite sticks were used by farmers and other in the late 19th and early 20th century, but this was on a far smaller scale. However, I tried to say thhose guys took the risk, they made it into a product they benefited from. The guys who took the risk were the workers on the Transcontinental Railroad and Wells Fargo that transported it from the east coast to California. There were major explosions in ships and warehouses in Panama and California, and many explosions during construction. Fortunately, Nobel licensed his techniques starting in 1867, and this greatly reduced the accidents. See: http://railroad.lindahall.org/essays/black-powder.html The explosives industry would not exist were it not for construction projects such as that, and later armies and navies using tons of explosives in warfare. The Transcontinental Railroad workers used more explosives on a daily basis than the U.S. Army did a few years earlier during the Civil War.
Re: [Vo]:Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Jed I will not try to debate the issue as we stand so far away from each other. In my opinion there are very few times governmental control and management has been successful. If DoE made some good investment in technology that is fine but it does not mean anything in the discussion about how one get the most bang for the buck in research I will guarantee that eliminating the accountability will create no good results. You talk about unfunded distrust in the government. You must be joking. You take the communication system as an example. While roads are in the somewhat OK I hope you can see the railroads are a big joke. Get some information about the California bullet train. It is easy to write a book about projects that the government has screwed up. I do not think you can fill a page with things the government has done better than anyone else could have done. The government gets by with that because they mostly have monopoly on their services. My believe is, that if you make sure that there is incentives and accountability for anyone who wants to take a risk and accept the two possibilities, success or failure, then there will be good result. To have politicians supported by tenured professors provide major personal risk is not possible that you believe? Your idea that government was larger in the 40,50,60s cannot be serious. The inventions you mention are mostly done by private enterprises. Other countries has mostly replaced coal plants and reduced air pollution long before the US. The US government has rather played the role of delaying international agreement on such issues. To protect investment by large companies and the government as they are considered to big to fail. Better with small entities we can afford a few are failing. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: That works in large organizations. Solindra for example is of course poor allocating of funds. You are missing the point. Yes, Solyndra was a poor allocation, but most of the money invested by the DoE Loan Programs Office was in excellent allocations. Overall, the fund made a good profit and it helped modernize and advance U.S. energy. The results were as good as investments by any bank or industrial corporation. However, in the end we have no means to get any better decisions by analyzing why and how. That is completely wrong. We can easily analyze how and why this happened. This is conventional technology and the results speak for themselves. We do have a means to get better decisions. Vote for responsible members of Congress and presidents. Obama has a far better track record than most previous presidents in that regard. Yes, somebody need something and someone else wanted something else and suddenly someone could collect and decided wrong. It was not a scientist or a person with understanding of research or anything of value to bring to the table. That is completely wrong. All of the DoE decisions were made by top experts from industry and government. That is why most the decisions worked out well. You cannot expect any group of experts to achieve 100% success and make a profit on every investment. If the decisions had been made by people without understanding, or if the decisions had been made on the basis of politics, you would end up with deep losses in most investments. It would be like military spending, which is highly corrupt. The DoE spending on conventional technology works well. DoE spending on basic research is not as good. Dept. of Defense spending is terrible. Different Departments do better or worse. You should blame the Representatives in charge of the committees, and the president for these problems. You should also give them credit for programs that work. Most government programs work. That is why we have highways, air traffic control, very few cases of food poisoning, reasonably safe drugs, and so on. You say that it was better in old times. In a way you are right and it was less need to CYA as less of the economy was handled by the big government. No, in the post-WWII period, a much larger fraction of the economy was handled by the government. This was also the most prosperous time in U.S. history. The government's role was especially large in basic RD. All of the major post-war technologies such as computers, integrated circuits, the laser, jet aircraft, space-based technology such as weather forecasting and the GPS, nuclear power and the Internet were either paid for by the government or invented by government researchers. *All* of them. We cannot turn back the clock and go back to the
Re: [Vo]:Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
I wrote: Steel hull construction was heavily subsidized by governments mainly for navy vessels, or ironclads as they were called. The U.S. Navy built the first modern steam-powered steel warship, the Monitor, during the Civil War. The British and French built ironclad steamships in 1959 before the U.S. did, but they were designed more like traditional sailing ships than the Monitor. See the Warrior ironclad, preserved as a museum at Portsmouth: http://www.hmswarrior.org/ The Monitor was more modern in many ways. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: OK Jed. If your opion is that you have theRIGHT opinion, then it is fruitless to discuss. Look, this is not about opinions. There are thousands of books about the history of technology and commerce in the U.S. I challenge you to cite a single one of them which denies that the federal government subsidized steam ships, railroads, and the others on my list. These are *facts*, and not disputed by any mainstream historian. Even large industries not directly subsidized got huge sums of government money. For example, the government did not directly subsidize Ford or General Motors in the 1920s, but it built billions of dollars worth of asphalt and concrete surface roads and later highways. Without these roads, automobiles would be useless. The government did not invent transistors or integrated circuits, but it was the first customer for them, and it spent billions of dollars on them for the military and for NASA. The price fell, reliability increased, and then they were introduced to consumer markets. The government always take over things , which can increase the government and then makes it disfuncti8nal. That might not be a viable opinion but it is mine. The government does not take over things. That is preposterous. It is just the opposite. The government did not take over the Transcontinental Railroad -- it paid for it, and then handed it over the privately held railroad companies, the Union Pacific and the Central Pacific. It did not take over aviation -- it paid for it and then handed it over to Pan Am and the other nascent air carriers. It did not take over the Internet. It invented it, paid for it, built it up, and then handed it over the telephone companies. Ditto the computer, the laser, jet aircraft, nuclear energy and just about everything else. I am a Swede. Alfred Nobel was also av Swede - no other similarities.. He was an inventor. He made money but he had nothing to do with government. WHAT? Who do you think paid for all that dynamite? What do you think they did with it? The first and biggest customer for nitroglycerin was the Transcontinental Railroad. It purchased thousands of tons, and made the industry out of nothing. Later, the biggest customers for dynamite and other modern explosives were the armies and navies of the world. The construction industry is also a major user of explosives. Government has heavily subsidized construction. It has paid for all infrastructure such as roads, highways, dams, large scale irrigation, bridges, subways, and so on, all of which depend on explosives. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Jed, My wife says tomorrow. I agree that dynamite was used by many. However, I tried to say thhose guys took the risk, they made it into a product they benfitted from. I will be back. On Jun 20, 2015 7:58 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: OK Jed. If your opion is that you have theRIGHT opinion, then it is fruitless to discuss. Look, this is not about opinions. There are thousands of books about the history of technology and commerce in the U.S. I challenge you to cite a single one of them which denies that the federal government subsidized steam ships, railroads, and the others on my list. These are *facts*, and not disputed by any mainstream historian. Even large industries not directly subsidized got huge sums of government money. For example, the government did not directly subsidize Ford or General Motors in the 1920s, but it built billions of dollars worth of asphalt and concrete surface roads and later highways. Without these roads, automobiles would be useless. The government did not invent transistors or integrated circuits, but it was the first customer for them, and it spent billions of dollars on them for the military and for NASA. The price fell, reliability increased, and then they were introduced to consumer markets. The government always take over things , which can increase the government and then makes it disfuncti8nal. That might not be a viable opinion but it is mine. The government does not take over things. That is preposterous. It is just the opposite. The government did not take over the Transcontinental Railroad -- it paid for it, and then handed it over the privately held railroad companies, the Union Pacific and the Central Pacific. It did not take over aviation -- it paid for it and then handed it over to Pan Am and the other nascent air carriers. It did not take over the Internet. It invented it, paid for it, built it up, and then handed it over the telephone companies. Ditto the computer, the laser, jet aircraft, nuclear energy and just about everything else. I am a Swede. Alfred Nobel was also av Swede - no other similarities.. He was an inventor. He made money but he had nothing to do with government. WHAT? Who do you think paid for all that dynamite? What do you think they did with it? The first and biggest customer for nitroglycerin was the Transcontinental Railroad. It purchased thousands of tons, and made the industry out of nothing. Later, the biggest customers for dynamite and other modern explosives were the armies and navies of the world. The construction industry is also a major user of explosives. Government has heavily subsidized construction. It has paid for all infrastructure such as roads, highways, dams, large scale irrigation, bridges, subways, and so on, all of which depend on explosives. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
I agree with that analysis. The problem of current science funding is not enough crazy. another is too big, ad to much money wth a winner take all effect. about subisides I find it is absurd t subsidize mass production. you don't make clipper sail boats progress by subsidizing transatlantic clippers. you subsidize research, or an america's cup, to push new innovations, but you don't dump money in huge volume just hoping some of the cash will be used to improve the efficiency and not mostly to pay bonus. we need crazy research to be fuded more, and what works well to be funded by market. you are right thet the problem of modern science is too much democracy, too much control, thus conformism, fashion, despair to succeed. in the old times, prince, kings, tycoons, where simply crasy funding hopeless research that falled in functon despite all bets, and all current theories. the problem is that modersn subisidies are just there to fund what private sector would fund, because it is rational. fundig a blackswan is by definition funding something that will fail most of the time. On the opposite the funding scheme based on conformism is not only killing creativuty, but it is killing the good greed that make people fund what will make a revolution. not only we fund things that will work, but if some anomaly is found , it is rejected as it endanger an ecosystem of parasites who self congratulate, share the same subsidies, create a predictable knowledge system where ex-post success depend on ex-ante consensus and not on ex-post results. in a consensus research, there is much less risk. that is the key of that system. and dissidents create a risk and have to be suppressed. 2015-06-20 0:14 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: The problem is all those analysis about why it went wrong and that big money was misused. The government is providing grants as they see fit. The government means a bunch of bureaucrats. They cannot spell risk. Therefore we will end up with more rules and restrictions and rules, which are supposed to sort out what is good research and what is bad ditto. In the past, the government provided grant money more freely, without strings attached. For example, the Navy gave a grant to Townes, which he used to develop the maser and the laser. These things had no technical or commercial use at first. No doubt some money is misused, but I think the bigger problem is micro-management by people in Washington. And this problem, in turn, is caused by society-wide distrust of science. It is caused by the kinds of people who assume that scientists are lying about global warming, or that scientists live high off the hog and enjoy lavish salaries and they do not work hard. The policy makers who put in place all these rules are not trying to rule over scientists. They are not doing it to exercise power. They are doing it because the Congress demands accountability. The bureaucrats and the Congress do this because they are afraid of the public. The policy makers are afraid to take risks because they will be fired if they make a mistake and support some young scientist who makes a big mistake. No one fires you for supporting me too research that breaks no new ground and contributes nothing to progress, as long as it get the right answer -- and the expected answer. Another expression of this problem is that a disproportionate share of the money goes to senior scientists instead of young ones. Young people are the ones who have new ideas. They are main source of progress. We cannot have things both ways. To encourage creativity we need fewer restrictions, which means less accountability, and more examples of money wasted. It is a mystery to me that it is not obvious, that with the fantastic ability to organize and access data we have in the western world we should utilize that strengths. Instead we are sending all resources to large organizations with no accountability. On the contrary they have too much accountability. Not enough academic freedom. In any case, it is the taxpayer's money. It has to be spent by the rules set by the Congress, in government laboratories. Widespread, unfounded distrust of government is a major problem in science, and also in technology. For example, the DoE Loan Programs Office was raked over the coals for losses by Solyndra Corp. What has been overlooked in this so-called scandal is the fact that overall the Office has loaned $30 billion and not only has it made a very good profit, it has produced a huge improvement in conventional energy systems ranging from nuclear fission to wind energy: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_juice/2015/06/peter_davidson_steps_down_from_energy_department_his_loan_program_was_responsible.html This is exactly what the government should be doing. This is what it has done successfully since the 18th century in support
Re: [Vo]:Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Jed I think this is true and that is good. The problem is all those analysis about why it went wrong and that big money was misused. The government is providing grants as they see fit. The government means a bunch of bureaucrats. They cannot spell risk. Therefore we will end up with more rules and restrictions and rules, which are supposed to sort out what is good research and what is bad ditto. Then we can be very sure we will see no giant steps forward. Progress will be reduced to evolution. In itself evolution is good but now and then one need to embrace the unknown. I think I have said it before; that requires small independent organizations given maximum freedom to act, It is a mystery to me that it is not obvious, that with the fantastic ability to organize and access data we have in the western world we should utilize that strengths. Instead we are sending all resources to large organizations with no accountability. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Here are some papers about mistakes in medical research: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196486/ This may make you feel better about all the mistakes in cold fusion, and all the crummy papers. Mistakes are endemic in science. They always have been. It is nature of groundbreaking research. No one knows how to do it, because it has never been done before. A large fraction of commercial RD also goes nowhere and has to be abandoned. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: The problem is all those analysis about why it went wrong and that big money was misused. The government is providing grants as they see fit. The government means a bunch of bureaucrats. They cannot spell risk. Therefore we will end up with more rules and restrictions and rules, which are supposed to sort out what is good research and what is bad ditto. In the past, the government provided grant money more freely, without strings attached. For example, the Navy gave a grant to Townes, which he used to develop the maser and the laser. These things had no technical or commercial use at first. No doubt some money is misused, but I think the bigger problem is micro-management by people in Washington. And this problem, in turn, is caused by society-wide distrust of science. It is caused by the kinds of people who assume that scientists are lying about global warming, or that scientists live high off the hog and enjoy lavish salaries and they do not work hard. The policy makers who put in place all these rules are not trying to rule over scientists. They are not doing it to exercise power. They are doing it because the Congress demands accountability. The bureaucrats and the Congress do this because they are afraid of the public. The policy makers are afraid to take risks because they will be fired if they make a mistake and support some young scientist who makes a big mistake. No one fires you for supporting me too research that breaks no new ground and contributes nothing to progress, as long as it get the right answer -- and the expected answer. Another expression of this problem is that a disproportionate share of the money goes to senior scientists instead of young ones. Young people are the ones who have new ideas. They are main source of progress. We cannot have things both ways. To encourage creativity we need fewer restrictions, which means less accountability, and more examples of money wasted. It is a mystery to me that it is not obvious, that with the fantastic ability to organize and access data we have in the western world we should utilize that strengths. Instead we are sending all resources to large organizations with no accountability. On the contrary they have too much accountability. Not enough academic freedom. In any case, it is the taxpayer's money. It has to be spent by the rules set by the Congress, in government laboratories. Widespread, unfounded distrust of government is a major problem in science, and also in technology. For example, the DoE Loan Programs Office was raked over the coals for losses by Solyndra Corp. What has been overlooked in this so-called scandal is the fact that overall the Office has loaned $30 billion and not only has it made a very good profit, it has produced a huge improvement in conventional energy systems ranging from nuclear fission to wind energy: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_juice/2015/06/peter_davidson_steps_down_from_energy_department_his_loan_program_was_responsible.html This is exactly what the government should be doing. This is what it has done successfully since the 18th century in support of virtually every major technology, from canals to telegraphs, railroads, aviation, to the Internet. The government has always played an essential role in technology, which must continue. Government has also been nearly the only source of funding for cold fusion since 1989. Fleischmann, Pons, Miles, McKubre and nearly all others were funded by the British and U.S. governments, mainly from DARPA and other military sources. Capitalist industry has contributed nothing, so far. We will need industry to make cold fusion a reality, but as usually happens, industry will come in after the discovery is made practical. The government and the public will pay for the development, and take the risks, while industry stands aside and later comes in to reap the profits. That is what happened with most previous technology such as computers and the Internet. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Jed, I disagree with your conclusions. I agree with your examples they are without any doubt correct and we could show many more - small and big. I do not think congress demands accountability. Like all people in the frontline they only have one interest themselves. Therefore the going way is the CTA policy. That works in large organizations. Solindra for example is of course poor allocating of funds. However, in the end we have no means to get any better decisions by analyzing why and how. We already know why the thing evolved. Yes, somebody need something and someone else wanted something else and suddenly someone could collect and decided wrong. It was not a scientist or a person with understanding of research or anything of value to bring to the table. It was one of our elected representatives. You say that it was better in old times. In a way you are right and it was less need to CYA as less of the economy was handled by the big government. Otherwise I would say there are pros and cons as time goes by. My point is that the decisions must be relocated to risk willing individuals or small homogeneous teams. The recipients will be held accountable. This can be handled by tax incentives and publication of the result in an open forum. I have no details for how but that is not the problem just now. Awareness of which direction there is a future for the most developed parts of the world is what we need. Academic freedom does not come by providing tenure and only support the establishment, I think academic freedom comes from being able to chose interest, find partners, risk personal future incentives and live with the consequences. IMHO freedom is the most important thing. I am not much of a poet nor do I read much poetry. My favorite snip is from a Swedish Bishop (I think about 1450 ) who wrote 'freedom is the best thing you can search for all around the world'. Here is poem. http://runeberg.org/vitaband/0128.html Translate it with Google it contains a lot of wisdom:) 600 years old wisdom. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: The problem is all those analysis about why it went wrong and that big money was misused. The government is providing grants as they see fit. The government means a bunch of bureaucrats. They cannot spell risk. Therefore we will end up with more rules and restrictions and rules, which are supposed to sort out what is good research and what is bad ditto. In the past, the government provided grant money more freely, without strings attached. For example, the Navy gave a grant to Townes, which he used to develop the maser and the laser. These things had no technical or commercial use at first. No doubt some money is misused, but I think the bigger problem is micro-management by people in Washington. And this problem, in turn, is caused by society-wide distrust of science. It is caused by the kinds of people who assume that scientists are lying about global warming, or that scientists live high off the hog and enjoy lavish salaries and they do not work hard. The policy makers who put in place all these rules are not trying to rule over scientists. They are not doing it to exercise power. They are doing it because the Congress demands accountability. The bureaucrats and the Congress do this because they are afraid of the public. The policy makers are afraid to take risks because they will be fired if they make a mistake and support some young scientist who makes a big mistake. No one fires you for supporting me too research that breaks no new ground and contributes nothing to progress, as long as it get the right answer -- and the expected answer. Another expression of this problem is that a disproportionate share of the money goes to senior scientists instead of young ones. Young people are the ones who have new ideas. They are main source of progress. We cannot have things both ways. To encourage creativity we need fewer restrictions, which means less accountability, and more examples of money wasted. It is a mystery to me that it is not obvious, that with the fantastic ability to organize and access data we have in the western world we should utilize that strengths. Instead we are sending all resources to large organizations with no accountability. On the contrary they have too much accountability. Not enough academic freedom. In any case, it is the taxpayer's money. It has to be spent by the rules set by the Congress, in government laboratories. Widespread, unfounded distrust of government is a major problem in science, and also in technology. For example, the DoE
Re: [Vo]:Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: That works in large organizations. Solindra for example is of course poor allocating of funds. You are missing the point. Yes, Solyndra was a poor allocation, but most of the money invested by the DoE Loan Programs Office was in excellent allocations. Overall, the fund made a good profit and it helped modernize and advance U.S. energy. The results were as good as investments by any bank or industrial corporation. However, in the end we have no means to get any better decisions by analyzing why and how. That is completely wrong. We can easily analyze how and why this happened. This is conventional technology and the results speak for themselves. We do have a means to get better decisions. Vote for responsible members of Congress and presidents. Obama has a far better track record than most previous presidents in that regard. Yes, somebody need something and someone else wanted something else and suddenly someone could collect and decided wrong. It was not a scientist or a person with understanding of research or anything of value to bring to the table. That is completely wrong. All of the DoE decisions were made by top experts from industry and government. That is why most the decisions worked out well. You cannot expect any group of experts to achieve 100% success and make a profit on every investment. If the decisions had been made by people without understanding, or if the decisions had been made on the basis of politics, you would end up with deep losses in most investments. It would be like military spending, which is highly corrupt. The DoE spending on conventional technology works well. DoE spending on basic research is not as good. Dept. of Defense spending is terrible. Different Departments do better or worse. You should blame the Representatives in charge of the committees, and the president for these problems. You should also give them credit for programs that work. Most government programs work. That is why we have highways, air traffic control, very few cases of food poisoning, reasonably safe drugs, and so on. You say that it was better in old times. In a way you are right and it was less need to CYA as less of the economy was handled by the big government. No, in the post-WWII period, a much larger fraction of the economy was handled by the government. This was also the most prosperous time in U.S. history. The government's role was especially large in basic RD. All of the major post-war technologies such as computers, integrated circuits, the laser, jet aircraft, space-based technology such as weather forecasting and the GPS, nuclear power and the Internet were either paid for by the government or invented by government researchers. *All* of them. We cannot turn back the clock and go back to the 1950s and 60s, nor should we. But we should learn from history and implement some of the good programs from that era. Otherwise I would say there are pros and cons as time goes by. My point is that the decisions must be relocated to risk willing individuals or small homogeneous teams. That works for investments in the millions or up to a few billion dollars, but you cannot replace all of the coal fired plants in the U.S. with renewable energy without a major role by the government. That is on the same scale as building a hundred major highways. Only the government can organize such a thing. You cannot implement cold fusion without a huge role by government, especially in performing basic physics research, and later setting standards and ensuring safety. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Actually they are not completely false- are Pareto Truths see my FQXI essay. The same is so true for CMNS Peter On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Food for thought. See: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124 -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
