Where does science get all its funding? I really don't get

File: bait.jpg (73KB, 960x539px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 960x539px

>>7952419

>>7952425

No, this is a serious question. I'm taking an environmental science course and I really don't get the concept of science.

>rejecting a null hypothesis

So everything is wrong, even when it is right where still going to try to prove that it is wrong?

And every scientist in the text book doesn't seem to be working for a company or the government. They're just like looking at random geological shit to try to "understand" the earth.

What purpose does it serve?

>>7952419
They may be privately funded by some rich dude or company or maybe they're funded by government grants if they show they'll get something worthwhile out of it.

>>7952431
>environmental sci
>So everything is wrong, even when it is right where still going to try to prove that it is wrong?
6/10

Will work on /sci/

>be an actual retard
>suffer from paranoid delusions that make you incapable of typing "practical applications of geology" or "practical applications of environmental science" into google
>come to a website for moon landing deniers to ask for basic information
>nobody will even try to talk to you except as part of an effort to make fun of you

I feel so sorry for you, OP.

>>7952425
>Anti-bait pic that is unironically pony bait in itself
I like it

>>7952419
Without science there'd be no infowars.com, no tin foil, and no electrified buttplugs. And then where would you be?

>>7952757
I would say with 7 billion monkeys and not enough bananas, social science is the primary energy science today. To answer the OP, it is expressed as economics. The world is a business, "science" is a means to an end and nothing more. There are many ends, but most are just control.

>>7952431
>What purpose does it serve?

This is outlined in grant proposals. Basically, if scientists want to keep getting function, they need to periodically send in multiple proposals essentially begging for money and presenting various reasons that their research is important. This takes up a significant portion of the scientist's time, to the point where most of the actual work is done by grad students, post docs, and lab techs.

>>7952819
>keep getting function

Keep getting funding. I've spent too much time coding today and my brain is basically mush.

>>7952431
>>7952419
>every scientist in the text book doesn't seem to be working for a company or the government.
In principle, it's not supposed to matter where scientists get their funding. They just get funded somehow, and they go out and study whatever seems interesting or important, and share their findings with the scientific community, to the general advantage of mankind.

>Where does science get all its funding?
In reality, it's mostly government money, and some donation-funded nonprofits, and scientists fight each other like crazy for that limited pool of funds, which ends up getting awarded based on their connections and past publishing. As such, scientists spend a tremendous amount of their effort on getting funded, and often change the direction of their research, muddy the waters by publishing papers that nobody would want to read, or even fudge their results to get it.

The unfortunate truth is that scientists are often more concerned with their status as professional scientists than with real progress in understanding the subject they're studying. The people distributing the funding are often living the same kind of life: they want to be (more) important and securely employed managers in nonprofits or government agencies, and are primarily concerned with that, so they may be angling to fund research that results in certain kinds of news headlines.

Everybody hates it, but nobody sees a way out.