Comment on Finish him. đȘ
Lemminary@lemmy.world âš5â© âšmonthsâ© agoWell, modern science is interdisciplinary, it relies on resource sharing and peer review to reach consensus, which all require many people. In practice, itâs merely research without collaboration if contributions arenât being made because Science isnât 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 ânot doing scienceâ?
Why is âresearchâ not the appropriate label?
testfactor@lemmy.world âš5â© âšmonthsâ© 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 âscience,â 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 âdoing scienceâ is making grilled cheese sandwiches. That doesnât 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 Iâm not arguing is that science isnât collaborative. Of course it is. There are huge benefits to collaboration, and it is very much the norm. But you have stated an absolute. âScience isnât science without collaboration.â And that is the crux of our disagreement.
And as to why I wouldnât just call it âresearch.â 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 âresearchers.â And I find the idea of calling any of those greats anything short of a scientist absurdly reductive.
Lemminary@lemmy.world âš5â© âšmonthsâ© ago
I mostly agree with you.
I donât think thatâs what Iâm saying, at least, thatâs not my stance. Iâm 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. Thereâs 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 youâre âdoing scienceâ, then we have the mutual understanding that youâre participating in all of the above, because otherwise, youâre just conducting independent research that could eventually find its way into the whole.
But if it doesnât ever find its way into the greater body of science, how can we label that as doing science if it hasnât 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 isnât true? It does nothing for our understanding. I wonât argue that it works as a colloquial term because a theory could mean whatever possibility popped into someoneâs head even if itâs wrong. Strictly speaking, a theory is much more than a plausible thought and I think that analogy carries on.
Thatâs a relic of what worked back then but their independent research eventually made it into the science, which is consistent with what Iâm 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.
testfactor@lemmy.world âš5â© âšmonthsâ© ago
If you arenât saying that âscience isnât science without collaboration,â can you give an example of something that is science without collaboration? I only ask because you state thatâs not what youâre saying, but follow it up with what, to my attempt at reading comprehension, is you just restating the thing you said you arenât saying.
And I would argue science done in secret can have enormous impacts beyond âsimply profits.â The Manhattan Project for example. I think it would be absurd to say what was going on there was anything but science, but there was no collaboration with the greater scientific community or intent to share their findings.
And look, of course you can be a researcher without being a scientist. Historians are researchers but not scientists obviously. But when what you are researching is physics and natural sciences, you are a scientist. Thatâs what the word literally means. When your definition requires you to eliminate Sir Isaac Newton, maybe itâs your definition thatâs wrong.
You say you see no problem with calling an apple a fruit when broadly speaking. Neither do I. But that doesnât mean that I wouldnât be absolutely delusional to insist that an apple wasnât actually an apple.
Lemminary@lemmy.world âš5â© âšmonthsâ© ago
Iâm so sorry but youâre getting unnecessarily aggressive over this. I donât wish to participate or waste my time with someone who will willfully ignore or misinterpret what Iâm saying. All your answers are above if you care to see things from my point of view. Thanks for the chat.