What a nonsense argument. Spending like this has to be justified on its own merits, not because there is some other bad spending. The argument you are trying to make would justify spending on almost anything.

The point is that there's so much bad spending that by comparison this is practically nothing to shake a stick at, and it produces actual science.

Repeating a bad argument doesn't transmute it into a good argument. I already explained why your argument is invalid. Please reconsider your dogmatic and irrational support for this kind of spending.

No, you just asserted that you think existing arguments are invalid, then accused a person who disregarded your assertion of being "dogmatic".