Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] predicting the future

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Mon, 1 May 2006, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:

> I think that the comparison made - where people say that if we simply 
> put the effort into curing cancer that we put into the space program - I 
> think this comparison is unfair.  If we had tried to make the space 
> program work in the 1930's, there is no way any amount of dedication or 
> effort could have made it work.  Technology had progressed to the point 
> where it was feasible in the 1960's to get a man on the moon.

How true!  Nixon declared a "War On Cancer" back in 1971...

http://training.seer.cancer.gov/module_cancer_disease/unit5_war_on_cancer.html

...and that didn't produce a cure.  People who were doing research back in 
those years tell met that when money was shifted to cancer research, tons 
of people who knew nothing about cancer started trying to do cancer 
research so that they could get funding.  This wasted a lot of money.  It 
also meant that other research wasn't getting the funding it probably 
should have received.  So, my friends (now retired professors) thought 
that research funding should go where the good research is and it 
shouldn't be used to push people into new areas.  I think they have a 
point but funding can produce effects on grad students' career choices 
that improve research in particular areas a few years down the road.


> For this reason, I really do think that a cure for cancer is going to be 
> available in a decade or two or three.

I know that researchers are divided on what the future holds.  I think it 
is wisest to side with the doubters because scientists tend to believe a 
little too much in the probable future payoffs of their work.  They are 
definitely biased in their own favor.


> I think that this question is much more complex than you give it credit 
> for. I think that the idea that the universe is controled by a few 
> universal mathematical laws is an amazing idea that took genius to 
> discover it.  Most cultures simply did not make this discovery, and my 
> guess is that our culture did so only because a few really talented 
> people like Galileo and Newton pushed the envelope.
>
> I think that these people were motivated in large part by faith.  I am 
> not necessarily talking about religious faith, although perhaps in the 
> case of Galileo and Newton it did play a large role.  But even in such a 
> person as Einstein, who was closer to Spinoza's notion of God, I think 
> that he was driven by a tremendous faith that his formulae would just 
> work out.

Well, Newton questioned the divinity of Christ and was very afraid of 
being found out by the religious authorities.  Galileo was imprisoned for 
holding beliefs that contradicted the "teachings" of the Catholic Church. 
Einstein was an atheist, but all his talk about God is pretty clear 
evidence that he felt some pressure to conform.  It's hard for me to give 
any credit to religion for the accomplishments of these men.  I agree that 
it is complex though.  Certainly Newton believed in God and was motivated 
by that belief, but what would he have been like in a different place and 
time where God was never discussed?  I don't know -- he could have been 
better or worse as a scientist under different conditions.

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion