Comment on Finish him. 🪓

• 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

      • Lemminary@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I mostly agree with you.

        But you have stated an absolute. “Science isn’t science without collaboration.”

        I don’t think that’s what I’m saying, at least, that’s not my stance. I’m trying to say that how we formally define Science is one thing. But in practice, Science can only be collaborative because of the complexity of topics, the nuance that needs to be captured in experimental design, and the human error that needs to be avoided. There’s also the connotation that science is the collective body beyond its works that encompasses a community, a culture, a history, a way of thinking, and so on. If you’re “doing science”, then we have the mutual understanding that you’re participating in all of the above, because otherwise, you’re just conducting independent research that could eventually find its way into the whole.

        But if it doesn’t ever find its way into the greater body of science, how can we label that as doing science if it hasn’t made an impact besides personal profits? And even if those findings work as advertised in a product, how do we know that the hand-waiving explanation in this black box isn’t true? It does nothing for our understanding. I won’t argue that it works as a colloquial term because a theory could mean whatever possibility popped into someone’s head even if it’s wrong. Strictly speaking, a theory is much more than a plausible thought and I think that analogy carries on.

        you are relegating the likes of great scientists like Newton, Cavendish, Mendel, and Killing to the title of mere “researchers.”

        That’s a relic of what worked back then but their independent research eventually made it into the science, which is consistent with what I’m saying. Labeling them as researchers takes nothing away from their great achievements. I see no issue with calling an apple a fruit when broadly speaking.

        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