Comment on Finish him. 🪓

• A_A@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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 ⁨months⁩ 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 ⁨months⁩ ago

    Another great example.

    source
• Lemminary@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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 ⁨months⁩ 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 ⁨months⁩ 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

      • testfactor@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        So, first and foremost it is important to recognize we are having a definition argument. The crux of our disagreement is over the definition of “science,” specifically as it relates to the act of doing it.

        Now, obviously anyone can claim that any word means anything they want. I can claim that the definition of “doing science” is making grilled cheese sandwiches. That doesn’t make it so.

        So, as with all arguments over the definition of words, I find appealing to the dictionary a good place to start. www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science Which, having read through all the possible definitions, does not seem to carry any connotation of mandatory collaboration.

        Now, the dictionary is obviously not the be all and end all. Words have colloquial meanings that are sometimes not captured, or nuance can be lost in transcribing the straight meaning of the word. But I think that the onus is on you to justify why you believe that meaning is lost.

        And note, what I’m not arguing is that science isn’t collaborative. Of course it is. There are huge benefits to collaboration, and it is very much the norm. But you have stated an absolute. “Science isn’t science without collaboration.” And that is the crux of our disagreement.

        And as to why I wouldn’t just call it “research.” First, I see no reason to. By both my colloquial definition and the one in the dictionary (by my estimation), it is in fact science. But, more importantly, if we take your definition, you are relegating the likes of great scientists like Newton, Cavendish, Mendel, and Killing to the title of mere “researchers.” And I find the idea of calling any of those greats anything short of a scientist absurdly reductive.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • Honytawk@lemmy.zip ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Because you can’t employ the scientific method with only one person.

      You need at least 2 to perform peer reviews.

      source

      • testfactor@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Peer review isn’t typically included in the list of steps to the scientific method. Or, if it is, it’s a coda, not part of the main steps.

        Dictionary.com for example lists the commonly accepted steps, and then follows it up with “usually followed by peer review and publication.”

        www.dictionary.com/browse/scientific-method

        Note the “usually.”

        It’s also worth noting that there is no real “formalized” or “official” scientific method. Just some agreed upon commonalities. Any dozen science books will give you a dozen different graphs of the steps, and no two will be the same.

        source
• AVincentInSpace@pawb.social ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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 ⁨months⁩ 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 ⁨months⁩ 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

      • testfactor@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Fair enough. I’ll engage, lol.

        Would you say that Sir Isaac Newton was a scientist? His research was almost entirely solo and was of limited release until much later.

        Stephen Hawking has no published reproducible experiments as far as I’m aware. Is he not a scientist?

        Is someone conducting research into a scientific field a scientist, or are they required to publish something before they can claim that title?

        Honestly, I find arguments over how words are defined kind of exhausting, so maybe we should just cut to the heart of the matter. None of the definitions of science I can find in any dictionary include the word collaboration. Do you think that that’s a failure of the dictionary? And even if you do, do you think people who are operating under the belief that the dictionary definition is correct are wrong for doing so?

        source

        • -> View More Comments