Reply to Comments on Could Gambling Save Science?

Abstract

Arthur Diamond comments that "it is not clear how a donor distributes money through Hanson's market". Let me try again to be clear. Imagine David Levy were to seek funding for the regression he suggests in his comments, on the relative impact of sports versus science spending on aggregate productivity. Consider what might happen under three different funding institutions

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,423

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

A reply to 'some new aspects of relativity: Comments on Zahar's paper'.Arthur I. Miller - 1978 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 29 (3):252-256.
Reply to David L. Miller's comments.Carl G. Hempel & Paul Oppenheim - 1948 - Philosophy of Science 15 (4):350-352.
Hanson's salvation by gambling.David M. Levy - 1995 - Social Epistemology 9 (1):39 – 40.
Gambling.Lisa Newton - 1993 - Business Ethics Quarterly 3 (4):405-418.
Gambling: Some Afterthoughts.Lisa H. Newton - 2003 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 17 (1):29-31.
Reply to comments.Roman Duda - 1997 - Foundations of Science 2 (1):65-66.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
18 (#814,090)

6 months
1 (#1,516,429)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references