Item — HN Reader

> You did defend the specific items, you said so explicitly, you used the word “specific” in your previous comment, your first sentence said you are now “more convinced the OP was right to point out those specific items”.

I said the OP was right to point those specific items out, I didn't say they were accurate. I haven't personally looked at each one, but it's certainly believable that the government might fund such things if for no other reason than we just fund a lot of things and some of them are unbelievably stupid.

The continued arguing about it is why I think they were right to point those specific items out. The more people protest "that didn't happen!1!!" the more I believe they probably did happen because if they didn't happen why are you spending so much time trying to convince me they didn't happen?

My point of view is this: yes the government sometimes wastes money on egregious things. While those things are typically relative small-dollar items, it still matters that such waste is stopped. If you disagree with that, I simply will never see eye to eye with you or anyone else. It's not about the specific items, they are either true or close to true in form, it's about the general point.

> Now again, science funding in the US runs a pretty decent return on investment, economists seem to agree. If you disagree with that, then please provide some sources or analysis.

I don't disagree with that. But that doesn't mean all "science" funding is created equal. I support science funding, generally speaking, but it's worth pointing out that supporting funding for science isn't necessarily the same thing as funding other academic pursuits.

1 comments

You’re digging in your heels only because people here are trying to point out facts that you assume are challenging your broader point, and not because you believe the items are true? Why not actually find out if they’re true or not?

I have personally looked at each one of the items in @bilsbie’s list, as you can plainly see above. I totally recommend that you take some time to do the same, instead of just thinking it’s believable. You’ll either have real ammo for the thread, or more understanding of why people here are protesting. Either way you win, you get more real factual information.

By aligning yourself with these “specific items”, and by assuming that protest of them somehow makes them more believable, you’ve made it quite a bit harder to get your own general point across in this thread, speaking of waste.

> I support science funding

Yes! Me too. See, we agree on a lot of things. I just wanted to make sure it’s clear that doing science necessarily involves some failure, and it’s not possible to invest in science without expecting some of the grants to not work out. There’s no such thing as 100% efficiency when it comes to investment. Some waste will happen. The grants I would call waste are the ones that involve grift or scientific dishonesty, and not the grants that go to silly sounding things.

Science funding in the US is under fairly intense budget pressure, BTW. Many many (probably most) academics complain about the lack of funding. The people who tend to make lists like @bilsbie’s often seem to be somewhat ignorant of the process of applying for funding and how much scrutiny goes into every grant.

> it’s worth pointing out that supporting funding for science isn’t necessarily the same thing as funding other academic pursuits.

Great, let’s start there. Take all the science grants out of @bilsbie’s list, and let’s discuss the non-science academic funding that’s wasteful. Three of the seven items were complaining about science funding, and the other four items were non-academic. So what would that be? What “other” academic pursuits would you put on the list of waste?

> Why not actually find out if they’re true or not?

Because I don't care about those specific items and whether those specific items are true or not. What does it matter? The broader point is the government wastes money, and sometimes those dollar figures are relatively small (few million here or there) but nonetheless we should stop wasting money.

> Three of the seven items were complaining about science funding, and the other four items were non-academic. So what would that be? What “other” academic pursuits would you put on the list of waste?

Wasn't one of those goat yoga? I'm all for having folks do research on things like that if they'd like, but should the government sponsor such "scientific" research? Maybe there's a compelling case for it. I am not too sure which is why I continue to emphasize I'm not overly concerned with the specific items on the list that was shared - instead I was concerned with folks who seemed to think that just because it's a few million we don't need to care. You can read the responses for yourself. Here's a selection:

  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49125445
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49126154
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49130720

It’s hard to have any serious discussion if you don’t care what’s true and simply have unsupported opinions. How do you actually know the government is wasting money? Do you have any first hand knowledge? How do you propose to fix the waste if you don’t know where it is exactly?

If you don’t care about those specific items, then why are you defending them as representing the broader point? They are not true, therefore they do not support your broader point. If you care about the government wasting money, you should care about whether the examples are true or not, and you should reject misleading and bad faith claims because they will cause people to label you as a political shill, and more importantly they might impede fixing any real actual spending waste.

If you want to reduce waste, it’s critically important that the list of waste be factually accurate. Otherwise, you’re adding to the waste and not reducing it. If you can’t make an honest and true list of waste, it calls into question whether there is any such waste, it directly challenges your broader point.

The list @bilsbie provided is a list that Elon Musk retweeted, and Elon Musk has at this point earned a reputation as a fabulist when it comes to government spending and efficiency, he has lost nearly all good will and has done damage and caused additional government waste without fixing any problems.

> Wasn’t one of those goat yoga? […] should the government sponsor such “scientific” research?

The government DID NOT sponsor goat yoga. It’s a fabricated false claim.

There is a 50+ year history of bogus political attacks on science funding, which is why I keep bringing up the Golden Goose Awards. The fact is, science funding is not wasting money. Unless there’s dishonesty involved, there are no small science grants you can point at that demonstrate government waste, you’re looking in the wrong place.

We do need to care about waste, but we need to care about the big waste first. The war in Iran has wasted more money this week than @bilsbie’s entire list (even if they were true, which they aren’t).

At the end of the day I've already stated my opinion here and I don't really have much else to say as I'm just repeating myself. I was never defending the specific claims (true or otherwise) and was defending the need to eliminate waste even if the elimination are small-potato line items.

What need is there? What small-potato line items are wasteful?

Well I can go dig up a few examples - and then what? Are you suggesting that the government doesn't waste money on small line items?

Then we can have a discussion about how to fix it. You can’t even start with a discussion about fixes until you have nailed down the exact problem… obviously. It would help immensely to find some factually valid examples.

If we had congress enact a law to ban studying goat yoga with federal funds, what would we achieve? We would have spent several million dollars to battle a problem that does not exist. We would waste money.

FWIW your language about “waste” is coming off as being pretty naive. Your conception of the problem is too vague to be actionable. That’s why we need real examples. As I mentioned above, you seem to be focused purely on spending while completely ignoring any ROI.

You’re also failing to prioritize, as many people here are trying to point out. Fixing the small line items before the big ones would be a massive waste of tax dollars. We can’t fix the small ones until we fix the big ones.

The list Musk & @bilsbie forwarded is not actually a list of waste in the sense you’re talking about, it’s a politically motivated statement about our country’s goals. The actual intent behind that list and the many many such lists started by Proxmire and amplified by Fox News and Republicans over the years is to cut science funding. They have said so explicitly. It’s trying to sow public mistrust, and convey the idea that we need different goals, not that certain line items are inefficient.

It seems to be working, you clearly don’t trust that funds are scrutinized properly. But do you actually know how the funds are allocated, and what processes currently exist to minimize and prevent waste?