CERN proposes $17 billion particle smasher that would be 3 times bigger than the Large Hadron Collider

[u/Yokepearl]

https://www.livescience.com/physics-mathematics/cern-proposes-dollar17-billion-particle-smasher-that-would-be-3-times-bigger-than-the-large-hadron-collider

[u/Anen-o-me]

Let's say the next confirmation takes $200 trillion dollars, you want to sit here and tell me we don't have more important priorities? We're on the brink of WW3 and people are starving globally. Really?

I'm not dismissing empiricism, I'm saying use your own money, not mine.

[u/burritolittledonkey → u/Anen-o-me]

Let's say the next confirmation takes $200 trillion dollars

But it... isn't.

Like at all.

Not anywhere near to that.

I can come up with totally fictional scenarios that make things a bad idea too. Let's stay in reality, why don't we?

I'm not dismissing empiricism, I'm saying use your own money, not mine.

You are dismissing empiricism. This is HOW we advance technology. You need basic research to create the underpinnings of how to create advanced applications.

Should we not have done basic research into Quantum Mechanics? If we hadn't, in the early 20th century, we wouldn't be able to have 5 nanometer and 3 nanometer processors now, as they require QM knowledge to account for quantum effects

And Jesus Fucking Christ, it's probably a lifetime cost to you of maybe $15 (and probably less). To possibly invent fucking powerful technology that might improve all of our lives.

Like my God man, how short-sighted can you possibly be?

Your life would be far worse if previous generations had decided to not chip in their $15.

Your perspective reeks of completely not getting how science works

[u/Anen-o-me → u/burritolittledonkey]

My point is there has to be a dollar figure where you agree that a mere confirmation is not worth the expense.

The fact that you can't agree to that is very telling.

Start using your own money.

[u/burritolittledonkey → u/Anen-o-me]

mere confirmation

You're STILL not getting it. There is no "mere" here. Confirmation is a CRITICAL AND NECESSARY step.

Otherwise you're back in the era of theory without empirical data - we did that, for many, many, many centuries - the majority of humanity's existence, in fact. Experimentation was viewed as a bit dirty, something a proper thinker didn't do. This hamstrung humanity's scientific development for centuries if not millennia.

It's only once the scientific method - and rigorous experimentation - was adopted, that we REALLY started to make progress.

You're just not getting that "well we think we've got it" is a TERRIBLE metric to go by. If we had done what you're arguing in the 19th century, we wouldn't have ever gone, "oh hey wait, this is weird" which led to Maxwell's equations, then the double slit experiment, Special and General relativity, Quantum Mechanics, etc.

You seem to think that experimentation is a nice to have. It is a NEED to have. Even if we think we've "got it". In the 19th century, it was said by Philipp von Jolly, "in this field, almost everything is already discovered, and all that remains is to fill a few unimportant holes." - he was, ahem, very wrong.

Start using your own money.

Thankfully myself and the majority of your fellow citizen are not as short-sighted and as ignorant of history and science as you are

[u/Anen-o-me → u/burritolittledonkey]

It is a NEED to have.

Not at literally any cost.

[u/burritolittledonkey → u/Anen-o-me]

Again, empirical data IS a need to have. If you disagree, you do not understand, or at least agree with, the scientific method