Ludwig

>>Crikey, science is so utterly interconnected with economics in a myriad ways.<<

Yeah, in many cases by selling out - both by need and greed.

As will happen if Gillard cuts R & D.

Ludwig,

<<All science geared towards genetic engineering is directly aimed at increasing productivity and hence economic growth, is it not? >>

Absolutely untrue.

Medical Science and the mapping of genomes is simply a scientific process that increases our medical knowledge. How that knowledge is applied to a variety of human domains is not restricted to “productivity”, whatever you mean by that.

It does however support preventive medicine and cures in such areas as viral, immunity, transplants, birth defects, bacteriological and biological fields. The latter has its uses in GM food production which has helped third world feed itself. To trivialize all this down to solely economics is wrong and mischievous.

As pointed out in my first post, science is a human discipline founded on trying to understand the natural and unchangeable laws of nature. Economics is a man made discipline based on “rules” created by humans and we can change these any time we want and we do this all the time.

Don’t confuse scientific output with its application to social, political, economic, religious or ecological domains. Otherwise you are creating hybrid (false) domains.

The challenge remains. If you continue to assert that the relationship between science and economics is anything other than scientific results being exploited by economics. You can evidence your assertion by pointing to any “Natural Laws” governing economics, or any economic, man made “Rule” that can change Physics

Labours economic science is to cut funding on real science (medical research) and watse billions and tax people on science fiction (man made global warming). Go figure!

It's an interesting question.
The application of economics to the fluid world of human endeavour is, I think, the key here.

The ongoing failure of many "experts" to forecast economic outcomes make one doubt the "scientific" basis of economics.

Economics in theory is purely a quantitative discipline. It leaves the qualitative question of human experience outside the picture.

E.F. Schumacher remarked thus in "Small Is BeautifuL":

"It is hardly an exaggeration to say that, with increasing affluence, economics has moved into the very centre of public concern, and economic performance, economic growth, economic expansion, and so forth have become the abiding interest, if not the obsession, of all modern societies. In the current vocabulary of condemnation there are few words as final and conclusive as the word "uneconomic". If an activity has been branded uneconomic, its right to existence is not merely questioned but energetically denied. Anything that is found to be an impediment to economic growth is a shameful thing, and if people cling to it, they are thought of as either saboteurs or fools. Call a thing immoral or ugly, soul-destroying or a degradation of man, a peril to the peace of the world or to the well-being of future generations, as long as you have not shown is to be "uneconomic" you have not really questioned its right to exist."

Runner,

Go figure, yourself - Schumacher believed in the divine creation of humankind - but he was a practical man who understood man's relationship with the planet.

<< But it's not exactly what Hume means is it? >>

No Bugsy, it’s not. But it doesn’t have to be, does it? It is just my take on the subject.

So I take it you agree that science and economics ARE intimately linked?

<< Yeah, in many cases by selling out - both by need and greed. >>

Yes Ammonite. A lot of our science is plagued by impure motives. But even if it wasn’t at all, it’d still be profoundly connected to economics.