Replies

It is certainly valid to argue against such projects based on role-of-government issues, but as soon as the author wrote:

Assume the Big Bang was how it all began. During this event, vast amounts of matter and radiation materialized from nowhere, the light-speed barrier was broken, space became curved, matter-antimatter annihilation destroyed millions of times the mass of the present universe, and other fairly wild stuff happened. A localized Big Bang Lite caused by a particle accelerator is unlikely, but why are we going out of our way to engage the risk?

and

...physicists privately are hoping the new ultraexpensive atom smashers won't find the ultimate elementary particle, the very thing they are designed to find. Wait -- they are hoping the $30 billion worth of projects will fail? Here's the reasoning: If the machines actually do discover what causes matter, how will science lobbyists justify billions more euros and dollars for additional atom-smasher subsidies in the future?

he became merely a delusional idiot.

well regarding the second comment, when a government program works it means it deserves more money because it was successful and we need to invest in success. If the government program does not work then it means that obviously we need more money because it was underfunded.

Yes, that was a stupid thought. While liberal arts professors make their bones writing about nothing, engineers and scientists get their prestige and earnings from actually doing something. Find nothing and they’ll generally find their funding going bye-bye (ethanol excepted).

Besides, a $15 billion accelerator has a much greater chance of producing benefits than a $15 billion road project in downtown Boston.

Since he was quoting Science magazine, "physicists privately are hoping the new ultraexpensive atom smashers won't find the ultimate elementary particle," you must think all the scientist that magazine represents are "delusional idiots," as well.

You might be right, actually, since science has stopped doing science and has resorted to promoting some sort of "scientific agenda" which persecutes anyone who attempts to question it. Think global warming, psychology, evolution, etc. etc. etc. (I'm an atheist, by the way. I do not believe in intelligent design--to much of it is absurd to be intelligent--nor in any current explanation of evolution, which is equally absurd, and totally with evidence.)

Hank