There are now three arguments in favor of manned missions that I can see, or variations thereof:

1- For advancing science, manned missions are probably better when they involve collecting samples.
2- Inspiration and related arguments: it’s far more inspiring to send real people to space. This has beneficial consequences on education among other things, and fits our “human” nature.
3- Emigration: while it’s true that there is no reachable place outside the stratosphere where humanity could settle, the key point is that we might not need one. It could be possible with long term research and technological advance to set up self-sustaining artificial settlements, moving or not, in an incrementally evolving (!) path from our current modest ISS.

Statto:
Well, I’m encouraging you to behave like a scientist, too then..? Given that we are clearly resigned over whether my arguments were selective criticism or straw man, all I can do is wait for your evidence for your counter-claim, if indeed you’re making one.

I already presented my evidence of your strawmen.

Statto:
To clarify this sprawling thread: I think that the question of budget allocation at the policy-makers’ level is the interesting one.

It is. But it is not what the BA’s blogpost is about.

Statto:
Though we did refer to scientists, I do not wish to continue to frame this debate in terms of them because the oceanography–NASA dichotomy is where this started, and what I was interested in discussing.

So, you want to change the subject, instead of concluding the discussion you started.

Statto:
I have already presented my evidence that this is not done in the UK. If you wish to engage me on that topic and demonstrate that it is done better than I suggested, I am ready, even hoping, to be convinced. Really.

And I really would like to see you take responsibility for your strawmen.

Statto:
If not, I don’t think this debate has anywhere useful left to go.

I am not surprised.

To clarify this sprawling thread: I think that the question of budget allocation at the policy-makers’ level is the interesting one. Though we did refer to scientists, I do not wish to continue to frame this debate in terms of them because the oceanography–NASA dichotomy is where this started, and what I was interested in discussing. I have already presented my evidence that this is not done in the UK. If you wish to engage me on that topic and demonstrate that it is done better than I suggested, I am ready, even hoping, to be convinced. Really.

If not, I don’t think this debate has anywhere useful left to go.

Statto:
I take full responsibility for everything I have said, including my assertion that this debate has become silly.

Empty words, unless you explicitly acknowledge the many strawmen I pointed out in my comments.

Statto:Are you not counter-claiming that scientists and policy-makers do take these things into account? If not, you’re not arguing anything, just encouraging me to keep typing..?

No, just encouraging you to behave like a scientist.

Are you not counter-claiming that scientists and policy-makers do take these things into account? If not, you’re not arguing anything, just encouraging me to keep typing..?

Statto:
This is getting silly. You are choosing bits of Phil’s argument, and I am choosing other bits, and we are then pitting our paraphrases against one-another: you call mine straw men, and I effectively call yours anti-straw-men because you’re ascribing an underlying logic which isn’t obvious from the original post.

What is silly is that you insist on putting words into other people’s mouths and expect to get away with it. I have pointed out where it happens, and you utterly failed to acknowledge that.

If you don’t feel comfortable taking responsibility for the words you say in public, then maybe you should think twice before using systematically strawmen in a public discussion.

Statto:
I am also at a loss as to why you are so eager that the burden of proof is all mine. It is, as I’m sure you’re aware, tremendously hard to prove a negative. If scientists and policymakers are taking an evidence-based approach to research, please present some evidence for it.

Your evidence-based approach, in your words:
“We should do all we can to identify which areas of science, and which projects, expose us most to the possibility of positive unexpected discovery.”

and

“We are scientists, so we should collect some data on public opinion, collect some more to work out how important public perception is, and try to account for this when deciding upon research topics.”

Your implied claim is that the scientific community is not doing this.

Your claim, your burden of proof.

I you don’t feel comfortable with that burden, then maybe you should think twice before making claims.

I am also at a loss as to why you are so eager that the burden of proof is all mine. It is, as I’m sure you’re aware, tremendously hard to prove a negative. If scientists and policymakers are taking an evidence-based approach to research, please present some evidence for it.