Comment

A_A@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

The rules and conventions to do science today are quite well known and understood by educated people (including of course Helen Mosque) … but any rules have exceptions :
Project Manhattan to produce the atomic bomb was secret science : in many countries military will have secret science development. Pharmaceutical companies will do as well.
People in those projects will not have recognition by the wider public but they will have recognition from their group.

source

Sort:hotnew top

gregorum@lemm.ee ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
yes, but even within those “secret groups”, there are SOP and conventions of intergrity.

source
- A_A@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  Thanks ! … if anyone else wants to know :
  SOP stands for Standard Operating Procedure. Within secret scientific research groups, SOPs are established guidelines or instructions for carrying out routine operations to ensure consistency, quality, and compliance with regulations. These SOPs help maintain integrity, confidentiality, and efficiency within the research group.
  
  source
  - BigPotato@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    Secret scientific research groups? Lol. Anyone with a passing familiarity with government work knows about SOPs.
    
    source
    A_A@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    GPT told me it was “Standard Operating Procedure” in the context of the previous comment. That wasn enough for me. I didn’t have to know it applies to your job in an English speaking country.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
testfactor@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
Heck, I can think of a half dozen other examples of things that aren’t published and/or can’t be reproduced but would be considered science.

If I had an unpublished workbook of Albert Einstein, would I say the work in it “isn’t science”?

If I publish a book outlining a hypothesis about the origins of the Big Bang, is it not science because it doesn’t have any reproducible experiments?

Is any research that deadends in a uninteresting way that isn’t worthy of publication not science?

I like dunking on Elon as much as the next guy, but like, “only things that are published get the title of ‘science’” seems like a pretty indefensible take to me…

source
- A_A@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  i agree because what I usually mean when i talk of science is scientific work even if this work doesn’t result in proving that an hypothesis is right so that it becomes a scientific theory.
  For me the main criteria is to follow the scientific method.
  
  source
- ryannathans@aussie.zone ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  How about all the research that goes into microchips in modern computers? All extremely secretive. Using published science only, it would be impossible to create today’s PC or phone
  
  source
  - testfactor@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    Another great example.
    
    source
- Lemminary@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  I’d say it’s just research. Science is a group activity by necessity, even if the scientific method is not.
  
  source
  - testfactor@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    What makes science a group activity by necessity?
    
    Why is one person employing the scientific method to better understand the world around them “not doing science”?
    
    source
    Lemminary@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    Well, modern science is interdisciplinary, it relies on resource sharing and peer review to reach consensus, which all require many people. In practice, it’s merely research without collaboration if contributions aren’t being made because Science isn’t defined when you apply the scientific method. Science is what we do collectively. So when offshoot research is vetted, it becomes part of the science.
    
    Why is one person employing the scientific method to better understand the world around them “not doing science”?
    
    Why is “research” not the appropriate label?
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
    Honytawk@lemmy.zip ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    Because you can’t employ the scientific method with only one person.
    
    You need at least 2 to perform peer reviews.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- AVincentInSpace@pawb.social ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  
  If I had an unpublished workbook of Albert Einstein, would I say the work in it “isn’t science”?
  
  I would say it isn’t science yet. I’d say once you published it and other people confirmed he was right, then it would be science. Until then it’s just research. Stating that it must be right just because Albert Einstein said it is disrespectful to the work of a lot of people, not least of whom is Albert Einstein
  
  source
  - testfactor@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    Do you also assert that my other two examples aren’t science?
    
    If so, why?
    
    If not, then I feel like my point still stands and don’t feel strongly enough to argue semantics over this particular one.
    
    Ultimately this is a fight over the definition of words, and I think 99.9% of people (and the dictionary) would define all my examples as science. If you want to split the hair of saying, “that wasn’t science, it was just scientific research,” have at it, but I’ll just call you a pedant, lol.
    
    source
    AVincentInSpace@pawb.social ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    
    If I publish a book outlining a hypothesis about the origins of the Big Bang, is it not science because it doesn’t have any reproducible experiments?
    
    Yes. It’s just a hypothesis. If you could reproduce conditions similar to the big bang and see the same thing happen, then it would be science. It would be a provable fact. If all it is is speculation, then what is there to base the science on?
    
    Is any research that deadends in a uninteresting way that isn’t worthy of publication not science?
    
    I disagree that there could be such research. An anticlimactic conclusion is an important conclusion nonetheless, and no less worthy of publication than an earthshaking one. If people who edit scientific journals disagree they can take it up with me.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
frauddogg@lemmygrad.ml ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
The Manhattan Project, being a project with no end game but genocide, really shouldn’t fucking be considered science; not unless you’re gonna crack out and try and tell me that indiscriminate, horrific mass murder deserves to be acknowledged in the same breath as mathematics and medicine.

source
- qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  But science doesn’t care about morality. Maybe you’re thinking about religion?
  
  It’s fair to say that the Manhattan Project wasn’t a “science first” project, but to deny that science was happening is…misguided, let’s say.
  
  source
  - frauddogg@lemmygrad.ml ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    “First do no harm” is an axiom of medicine that more of you STEMlords should probably internalize, so maybe stow the condescension. I categorically refuse to accept a tool of mass genocide being counted next to that which would save lives and objectively measure our reality.
    
    source