While I believe they answered well, the short being it being published doesnât 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.
psud@aussie.zone âš5â© âšweeksâ© ago
They are logically different. Harry Potter is published, but itâs not science, for example, so it is not true that if it is published it is science
dohpaz42@lemmy.world âš5â© âšweeksâ© ago
I can live with downvotes. Itâs the internet and not everyone knows me. And to be fair, Iâve made some âfriendsâ 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 thatâs 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.