On 9/27/05, Jorge Noreńa <nod...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sam, you keep speaking of science in terms best fit for industry and
> economy. But, as I said twice before, science is not an industry, you cannot
> apply industrial and economical models to science, and you cannot even
> compare science with an industrial model (like you did when comparing
> science with the "Trabant model." Science, philosophy, art, literature, etc,
> are not industries; a model that works in industry, economics, law, monopoly
> control, etc, cannot be imposed on them simply because they escape such
> models, they are beyond such models. In fact, I personally think that doing
> so is a monstrosity
> (which is sadly quite common today.) Science does have several problems
> (including political and epistemological problems,) I simply think that the
> one you are pointing at is not one of them.
to work as scientist. Science does respond to economic pressure - scientists
need money, don't they? Science as it's currently structured, fits into the
monopoly model, whether you seek to close your eyes for that or not. Science
is funded largely by an organization that operates on a monopoly basis:
government. Government controls huge budgets for education and the military,
where mosts scientists work. Government controls many private institutions,
such as schools and colleges, through accreditation, and many private
suppliers of military technology. Those facts are hard to deny, Jorge.
Sam
|
