Vaniver comments on How minimal is our intelligence? - Less Wrong

55 Post author: Douglas_Reay 25 November 2012 11:34PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (214)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Vaniver 22 November 2012 02:55:35AM *  5 points [-]

This might equally lead to the conclusion that the kind of "fundamental research" you're talking about just isn't very worthwhile.

No. Just... no. What differentiates basic research and applied research is how many years there are until commercial application. For applied research, the number of low- five years is stretching it, and hopefully it'll be less than one. For basic research, the is number is larger- it was around three decades from Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect to the commercialization of cameras based on it.

The point that some here considering burning of books a taboo, and that that disagrees with consequentialism, is an interesting and valid point. The point that public goods can be provided without government intervention is an interesting and valid point as well, but you're not arguing it well.

Comment author: Bugmaster 22 November 2012 04:29:08AM 5 points [-]

For basic research, the is number is larger- it was around three decades from Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect to the commercialization of cameras based on it.

Another problem with fundamental research -- from a commercial corporation's point of view -- is that its results may not be applicable at all to products in your target market. For example, you might start by researching the formation of clouds in the atmosphere, and end up with major breakthroughs in atomic theory. Those are interesting, to be sure, but how are you going to sell that ?

This is but one of the reasons why large corporations tend to stay away from fundamental research, unless they can write it off their taxes or something.