@EmilioPisanty to be fair I don't think you and bolteppa are that far apart.
No-one is suggesting we immediately commit 21 billion to building a new accelerator.
But that wouldn't happen anyway. The next step would be to fund the initial engineering studies and that would be much cheaper. I doubt either you or bolteppa would object to that. Would you?
The truth is that it's impossible to make an accurate estimate. You can't just go out and buy a 100TeV collider. The technology for it doesn't exist right now and we can only estimate how much it will cost to develop.
But what Hossenfelder appears to be saying is that we shouldn't even commit to the relatively low investment needed for the engineering studies, but instead we should call a complete halt to all new collider research.
If she is saying that, and only she knows for sure, then that's a position that I disagree with, and I would guess that @EmilioPisanty and @bolbteppa would disagree as well.
That's why I don't think the two sides differ that much.
The SSC was cancelled in 1993. Construction of the LHC didn't start until about 2000 so I doubt the design work had started before the SSC was cancelled, or at least not long before.
My guess is that if the SSC had not been cencelled the LHC would not have been constructed.
@EmilioPisanty I don't think bolteppa is saying it's antiscience to not immediately commit to handing over 20 billion pounds (or is it dollars).
He's saying it's antiscience to commit to stopping all funding
The language is unnecessarily immoderate, but I too would feel that a blanket declaration that all funding for collider research be stopped would be a step too far.
@EmilioPisanty well Hossenfelder's position could be interpreted as demanding a halt to all research.
@EmilioPisanty well it kind of felt to me as if Hossenfelder was saying no more research
I'd have to go back and reread her article (if I had nothing better to do) but it left me with a very negative feel on first reading.
@EmilioPisanty OK, I'll go back and reread it.
