Comment on Finish him. đȘ
Lemminary@lemmy.world âš6â© âšmonthsâ© agoI mostly agree with you.
But you have stated an absolute. âScience isnât science without collaboration.â
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.
you are relegating the likes of great scientists like Newton, Cavendish, Mendel, and Killing to the title of mere âresearchers.â
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 âš6â© 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 âš6â© 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.
testfactor@lemmy.world âš6â© âšmonthsâ© ago
I reread my post and Iâm not sure what you took as aggressive? That I used the word delusional? I didnât intend that to be harsh, but sorry if it came across that way.
But, in my experience, arguments over how words are defined are usually unproductive because language is inherently arbitrary, so Iâm fine calling it here. I doubt weâd make any progress.
I hope life is treating you well and you have a pleasant evening.
urbeker@lemmy.world âš6â© âšmonthsâ© ago
Your argument seemed perfectly reasonable. I think it was just a classic case of the discomfort of someone pointing out cognitive dissonance being misinterpreted as aggression.
I do wonder if this is a case of the in-group has repurposed a word to make it more useful to them. Perhaps inside modern academia science means published in a scientific journal. Even though outside that group to use the word like that would seem wrong.