They never claimed that all published papers are science. They said if it’s not published, it’s definitely not science.
Comment on Finish him. 🪓
Kolanaki@yiffit.net 1 year ago
I’ve read plenty of times about bullshit published papers that disprove it must be correct and reproducable to get published.
Dave@lemmy.nz 1 year ago
TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip 1 year ago
If it’s not published it’s not science. The Contrapositive is if it is science, then it is published.
Not if it is published it is science.
dohpaz42@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Why can’t it be both?
psud@aussie.zone 1 year ago
They are logically different. Harry Potter is published, but it’s not science, for example, so it is not true that if it is published it is science
dohpaz42@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I can live with downvotes. It’s the internet and not everyone knows me. And to be fair, I’ve made some “friends” along the way.
But to your point, in the Venn Diagram of life, I admittedly was basing my question on the smaller subset of actual papers that are scientific in nature, and certainly not fantasy novels. You do raise a good point about published and peer reviewed pseudoscience, like cosmology. I would hope that , as pointed out by Yann LaCun, those publications need to be reviewed and vetted by people too and that’s where their claims hopefully fall apart.
I digress. I see now how my questions holds a lot of assumptions; which by its very nature is unscientific. It was an earnest question, so I thank you for pointing out its flaws.
TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip 1 year ago
While I believe they answered well, the short being it being published doesn’t mean it is automatically science, there are plenty of shitty publications that care more about number of articles than ensuring good practices, and good peer review.
The point of what he was saying was that you need to publish it for it to be science tho, as science is there to build knowledge and increase our understanding, and not publishing does not allow that and thus is not science, even if the methods were good and the logic was sound.
originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Some published papers are not reproducible. All unpublished papers are not reproducible. You’re creating a dangerously wrong equivalence.
kernelle@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I feel like I’m missing something here so I’ll be the devil’s advocate, why can’t unpublished papers be reproducible? Multiple teams could independently be verifying hypotheses and results under the same organisation, adhere to the same standard but never publish, that would still be science no? Not doing humanity any favours, but science nonetheless.
originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Because science is about objective, provable fact following a known and public method. An organization can say their findings are reproducible, but reproducibility is more than just getting the same results every time the same lab runs the same PCR on the same machine. To be truly reproducible your results need to be able to be replicated by anyone with appropriate materials and equipment.
What you are describing is research, not science. It’s not that research is bad, but that science is a philosophical adherence to a method as much as it is that method itself
kernelle@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Seems like the only difference is that if it’s public or not ie published. I think it becomes a matter of opinion then, because independent teams within the same organisation can absolutely peer review eachother, use completely different methodology to prove the same hypothesis and publish papers internally so it can be reproduced internally.
Science should be made public, but just because it’s not doesn’t mean it’s not science. When the organisation starts making public claims they should have to back that up along the official route, but they could just as well keep their findings a secret, use that secret to improve their working formula and make bank while doing that. Not calling their internal peer reviewed studies science just seems pretentious.