Comment by pfdietz
1 day ago
That sounds more like applied science in support of specific (and large scale) development activities. That can't be used as a justification for science of any kind, and not as justification for pure science. To do otherwise is to engage in a kind of cargo cult reasoning, confusing correlation with causation.
I don’t think basic scientific research needs to be justified by narrow economic considerations as it has inherent value. But it’s a commonplace observation that you can’t predict what kinds of scientific research will or won’t have practical applications within a given time frame. Computer science started out as an extremely esoteric branch of pure math.
> inherent value
Hitchen's Law can be applied to such assertions. "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." It's an article of faith or of personal preference masquerading as an objective truth. Because there is no evidence backing it up, if some political party comes into power and wants to slash funding, what are you going to do to fight them? Proclaim your opinion more loudly?
> computer science
Wouldn't this have (and wasn't it largely) developed anyway once computers were being made for practical reasons, like thermodynamics came along because of steam engines? In any case, isn't math and CS theory a great example of the point that you can let someone else do it and then get it for free? If I invent an algorithm or prove a theorem, if it has any value other people can take it and run without my permission or knowledge. What I get is the ego boost of having been first, but is that sort of historical vanity a justification for expenditure of public resources?
No-one can rationally justify their basic values. If you think there’s no inherent value in learning about the universe we live in then I won’t argue with you. Just as you wouldn’t argue with someone who denied that money was valuable.
You’re assuming that modern programmable digital computers would have arrived at the same point in time even if the theoretical foundations from Frege and Babbage onwards had never been laid (and that we would have had just as much success programming them to do what we wanted). Possible, but hardly something that can be assumed. And of course, Church and Turing’s seminal work predates the advent of programmable digital computers, contrary to what you appear to be suggesting.
As for computer science, the US made the biggest investment in it and got the biggest rewards. It doesn’t seem like an example that supports your claim.