What I said is that today's super-expensive science requires massive government investment, especially in basic research, where there is no immediate payback in sight. Where, in fact, the payback will be totally unexpected and not immediately connected to the initial research. If you call experimenting with different colored dyes to make shampoo more visually appealing for consumers "basic research", or if it is fundamental science to study new assembly methods that will allow miniscule savings in production costs, then I guess private enterprise does invest a lot in basic science.

Galileo could go to the spectacle maker and buy lenses for his first telescope, or use them as a model to make one in his workshop. If you were Herschel or Rosse you could either use your own personal fortune or rely on a wealthy patron. The great telescopes of the 19th century were financed by wealthy philanthropists, but the Hubble, and the LHC was financed with public funding, it was the only way it was going to happen. The easy, cheap stuff has already been done. THAT is why "The idea of government-funded science was almost unknown until the 20th century". It wasn't until the 20th century that we needed it.

I am not attacking profit, or the profit motive, or accusing business of being incapable of doing anything of value without government goading. In fact, I thought I made the point very convincingly that private enterprise can raise even MORE funding than government, providing a plausible potential return can be shown to investors.

Of course, if you have already decided I do not believe that, and are determined to show how I am single-handedly trying to diss and dismantle the free enterprise system, then I guess there's nothing I can do or say to stop you.