Randall R Randall
><surprise> In the US, at least,
science is usually
>funded by taxation directly, far from
*paying* taxes...
>I would say that this has little to do
with the validity
>of science, however, any more than it
condemns
>the concept of building roads.
Right, I forgot about that. Billions of
tax dollars fund
political science (particularly
"politically correct"
political science). <g>
No doubt we can agree (okay, this has
not much to do with
it) that we can build better roads with
science than with
anti-science. Anyway, corporate
scientific research labs
(Bell Labs, ADM, Genentech, Lilly
pharmaceuticals, GE, etc.)
get most of their funding from real
profits that they
generate themselves.
I brought up the subject of taxes, not
because of anything
to do with institutional funding at
taxpayer expense, but
because I view science as productive,
creative, practical,
truthful, and capable of generating
taxable wealth (very
extropian, that). I think that overall,
science pays more
taxes than it receives, especially if we
include goods and
services that scientific research has
made possible.
Contrariwise, organized religiosity
receives more via its
tax-free status than it has ever had the
means to pay back.
N.B.: Does the fact that some
governments deem it worthy of
funding contribute to the validity of
science? Well...
governments that hire religious fanatic
terrorists instead
of rocket scientists to provide
themselves with military
defense may not think so. Personally, I
view any paradigm
(religious, philosophical, aesthetic,
educational, economic,
social, whatever) so delelict that it
requires a special tax
exemption in order to continue, just a
waste of time.
>
>>-Science relies on empirical evidence;
religion relies on
faith.
>
>This one would require some defense, I
think.
Have you read Richard Dawkins?
Cheers,
J. R. Molloy