“The so called “black budget” of super secret science projects is something like ~$30 billion annually. Citizens are not permitted to know the results of these projects or even what the projects are.”

“We can’t answer that question with any degree of assurance because the U.S. government won’t tell us the exact figure for the so called U.S. “black budget”. Various folks have estimated it to be in the range $30 to $40 billion annually.”

“I’m sure there are some other miscellaneous agencies that would qualify as part of the science budget, but if we just take these 3 for simplicity then the secret “black budget” is 35 to 45 percent of the total science budget. But like I said, that’s just a rough estimate. Nobody really knows.”

Tom, where are you getting these numbers? Are you making them up yourself? Do you have sources for these claims?

Feh

You brought up secret reserach and “black budgets”. It is your burden to show that this reflects on research as a whole, since you made a generalization.
I simply pointed out that budget is not necessarily a good quantification of research.

If you are unable to quantify sensibly the ratio between open and secret research, then you are in no position to make the generalization that “Even in the United States science as it is really practiced is very far from participating in these ideals.”

———-

Tom Marking: “What is the linkage to democracry? Please provide evidence for said linkage.”

You are still missing the point. Read the original article again.

Phil said,

“Democracy is an experiment: it’s still in its early act on the world’s stage. It started with a hypothesis — people have a say in how they are governed — and it’s gone through a few versions since then. We try different things, even swapping out our equipment every few years when we need an upgrade. Our basic premise, the Constitution in our case, is updatable as needed. If the evidence that our choices were wrong becomes overwhelming, then we’re willing to start over again from the beginning.”

I take this to mean that the method for establishing and maintaining a Democracy is similar to the scientific method. You try something new, you make changes, you try it again, and so-on. I think some people are confusing “Democracy is like science,” with “Science is like a Democracy.”

Don’t blame me if you can’t define your question properly (e.g., what “work” would mean in this context and how will it be measured).

“Even it is secret, researchers know that the scientific method yields results. Therefore, even within the secret environment, they apply it.”

Nonresponsive. What is the linkage to democracry? Please provide evidence for said linkage.

@Buzz Parsec “If you don’t publish your results, it isn’t science.”

Ahh, but they do publish their results. It just so happens that the reports they generate under the “black budget” projects are classified as top secret so you need a security clearance to read them.

@David D “There are some “Mavericks” here who just find it impossible to disagree with Phil. You have discovered a few of them.”

I prefer the term “book-licking lackeys” personally.

Don’t blame me if you cannot support your assertions.

———–

Tom Marking: “If you are suggesting that democracy uses the scientific method then please provide evidence for your claim.”

Could you stop trying to put words into other people’s mouths?
I said: “It is not about politically democratic values. It is about the method used to determine the correctness of their conclusions. Even in “black projects” the researcher follow the scientific method.”
Even it is secret, researchers know that the scientific method yields results. Therefore, even within the secret environment, they apply it.

If you are suggesting that democracy uses the scientific method then please provide evidence for your claim.

open: 8.5E12 joules
secret: 4.6E12 joules

C’mon. Ask something that can be answered for a change.

Tom Marking: “Are the scientists who are working on the secret “black budget” projects also behaving in a way consistent with democratic values?”

You are still missing the point. It is not about politically democratic values. It is about the method used to determine the correctness of their conclusions. Even in “black projects” the researcher follow the scientific method.

P.: “How much of the research performed by the world-wide scientific community is secret?”

Tom Marking: “I do remember Carl Sagan mentioning in his book “Cosmos” that roughly half of the world’s scientists were employed on defense projects. I don’t know where he got that statistic from or if that statistic has changed since the end of the Cold War or not.”

Translation: “I have no idea.”
Which means that you have nothing to support your claims about how science is really practiced.

P.: “What is the ratio between open research and secret research in the US?”

Tom Marking: “We can’t answer that question with any degree of assurance because the U.S. government won’t tell us the exact figure for the so called U.S. “black budget”. Various folks have estimated it to be in the range $30 to $40 billion annually. [SNIP!]”

What makes you think that I was referring to budgets?
How much work is done in open research compared to secret research?

I do remember Carl Sagan mentioning in his book “Cosmos” that roughly half of the world’s scientists were employed on defense projects. I don’t know where he got that statistic from or if that statistic has changed since the end of the Cold War or not.

Well, of course, somebody must know but being a member of the unwashed masses, I am not in the group that knows.

We can’t answer that question with any degree of assurance because the U.S. government won’t tell us the exact figure for the so called U.S. “black budget”. Various folks have estimated it to be in the range $30 to $40 billion annually.

That compares to $17 billion for NASA’s 2008 budget, $6.4 billion for the National Science Foundation 2008 budget, and $29 billion for the National Institutes of Health. I’m sure there are some other miscellaneous agencies that would qualify as part of the science budget, but if we just take these 3 for simplicity then the secret “black budget” is 35 to 45 percent of the total science budget. But like I said, that’s just a rough estimate. Nobody really knows.

“Which has nothing to do with what the BA actually said. He was referring to how scientists operate in research, not to their political or ideological purpose.”

Are the scientists who are working on the secret “black budget” projects also behaving in a way consistent with democratic values?

Which has nothing to do with what the BA actually said.
He was referring to how scientists operate in research, not to their political or ideological purpose.

Tom Marking: “Also, one must be a little more specific in terms of what values of democracry science supposedly shares. Perhaps one might be thinking of openness and the free exchange of ideas as one such value. Even in the United States science as it is really practiced is very far from participating in these ideals. The so called “black budget” of super secret science projects is something like ~$30 billion annually.”

How much of the research performed by the world-wide scientific community is secret? What is the ratio between open research and secret research in the US?

It isn’t supposed to be a comprehensive list, Phil specifically said “a lot of the same values”, not “all of the same values”.

You’d have to be more explicit on what you mean by a value in science. Typically, when we say that a society has a value it can be framed as a proposition: A is morally good, B is morally bad, etc. Does science generate such propositions: X is morally good, Y is morally bad, … ? If you say yes then you need to show how the scientific method of hypothesis, test, revise can generate such propositions. I don’t think science can generate such propositions. It can only generate propositions of the form: X exists in nature, Z exists in nature, X is related to Z by formula Y, etc.

“I agree, which is why Phil spent two paragraphs discussing them.”

The only thing I got from Phil’s paragraphs was the following:
1.) People have a say in how they are governed
2.) We try different things
3.) We swap out equipment every few years when we need an upgrade
4.) The Constitution is updatable as needed
5.) If evidence arrives that our choice was wrong we start over from the beginning

I’m not sure if this is the comprehensive list of values or not. It seems to me that democracry has others such as “one person, one vote” which I’m not sure applies to science.

“I don’t think it’s even a serious discussion unless there is some definitive enumeration of what these supposed values are.”

I agree, which is why Phil spent two paragraphs discussing them.

“It’s not clear to me that every democracy shares the same values. Are the values of India the same as the values of the United States?”

The country as a whole might not, but the principles on which the government is based do. They may disagree on exactly how power is split up between the various branches, but for the most part they set up to operate in a fairly similar manner.

Yes, but that is a long way from demonstrating that science is imbued with democratic values. I don’t think it’s even a serious discussion unless there is some definitive enumeration of what these supposed values are. It’s not clear to me that every democracy shares the same values. Are the values of India the same as the values of the United States? So which democracy are we talking about?

That is basically making my point which is there is no inherent connection between science and democracy. Science can work in even a totalitarian regime provided the circumstances are appropriate. The way I like to think of it is this. Science is a technique for interrogating nature. As such, many different types of societies can use this technique including those which we might find abhorrent. Being a technique, science is amoral (i.e., without morals) and value-less (meaning not connected with moral values as opposed to valueless meaning of no use).

If science shares the values of democracy then why does it flourish so well under non-democratic regimes?

I fail to see your reasoning here. Science can work under any form of government as long as it is allowed to operate its own way. Science can flourish under totalitarian regimes as long as they let science do its own thing. But if any government, including a free one, tries to force science to behave differently science will fail. It is no different than, say, a democratic government existing within a region of a totalitarian one. As long as the totalitarian regime allows the democratic region to operate freely in those areas under which it has jurisdiction, it can continue to operate as a democracy. But if the totalitarian regime tries to interfere, the democracy will fail. Same basic idea.

In the Soviet Union, for instance, the study of genetic and evolution was essentially outlawed and replaced with a communist-based ideology now called “Lysenkoism”. As a result Soviet biology was stunted for decades, and their agricultural system practically destroyed when the government tried to force it to work with Lysenko’s ideas. Countless people starved to death. By contrast the West used evolutionary principles and their agricultural system flourished. Similarly, although the Soviets beat the U.S. to space the U.S. space program had much more control given to scientists and as a result the U.S. space program was much more productive from a scientific standpoint. The Van Allen belts, for instance, were discovered by the U.S. because the Soviets refused to listen to their scientists who wanted to put scientific instruments on their satellites.