Quote:
Originally Posted by Matata
People trust science, but then use govt and media to source 100% of their science. If people actually wanted to be true to the scientific method, they would be hostile and untrusting of every bit of science that comes their way. Instead, the public at large would rather crown "scientists" as the new high priests and accept their decrees. I get it, science is hard and you basically have to dedicate most of your life to it to have any degree of proficiency or intuitive understanding about it, and even then you can only claim expertise in a handful of subjects.
"Trust the science" is literally the most unscientific statement you could ever possibly make, and it always comes from govt and media. "Trust nothing, aggregate as many possible sources and never assume you're correct" doesn't roll off the tongue the same way.
|
In general:
If the science has a economic potential it is funded by private investment
If it has public benefit it is funded with public money
The difference between these two is that public grants only require that you publish your results, and spend the money according to the guidelines, there is 0 pressure to have any particular outcome.
Private investment however creates a massive amount of pressure to reproduce a desired outcome. Not to say that the science is worse, but that there is incentive to fudge a little
This is not to say that Government grants in Canada do not have their own bias. This bias is more a kin to choosing which pot to dump funds into than prescribing in any way what the outcomes from that pot will be.
TLDR/ Science isn't free, it is very expensive, Someone is always going to pay for it, the science is slightly (
SLIGHTLY) more reliable when it's funding is not for profit. This is obviously a gross over simplification.