Comment on Finish him. đȘ
testfactor@lemmy.world âš6â© âšmonthsâ© agoDo you also assert that my other two examples arenât science?
If so, why?
If not, then I feel like my point still stands and donât 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, âthat wasnât science, it was just scientific research,â have at it, but Iâll just call you a pedant, lol.
AVincentInSpace@pawb.social âš6â© âšmonthsâ© ago
Yes. Itâs 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?
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.
testfactor@lemmy.world âš6â© âšmonthsâ© ago
Fair enough. Iâll 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 Iâm 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 thatâs 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?
Honytawk@lemmy.zip âš6â© âšmonthsâ© ago
You mean Sir Isaac Newton, who believed in Alchemy and wrote many things on the subject?
He became only a scientist after his work was peer reviewed.
testfactor@lemmy.world âš6â© âšmonthsâ© ago
Believing in alchemy isnât quite the slam dunk you think it is, since at the time we didnât even know atoms existed, lol. It turns out that people who have massive gaps in the information available to them come to wrong conclusions sometimes, lol.
Youâre just restating the position that Iâve already argued a ton elsewhere in the thread, so instead Iâll ask for a moment of introspection.
Do you believe you would have taken this stance if Elon Musk hadnât taken the opposite one?
You are currently arguing that Isaac Newton wasnât a scientist until that moment someone found his notebooks, at which point he magically became one. Youâre arguing that none of the people who did the research on nuclear physics during WW2 that led to the development of the atomic bomb were scientists, since none of that research was intended for publication or peer review.
Would you have said Oppenheimer wasnât a scientist outside of the context of this image weâre responding to?
At this point I just feel like Iâm arguing against people who are knowingly taking a position they never would have taken if not to âown Elon Musk.â Itâs the knee jerk reaction of âI canât agree with that person I hate, so Iâve gotta argue the opposite.â
Which, look, I get the hate and like to see him dunked on as much as the next guy, but itâs the definition of arguing in bad faith if you donât actually believe the thing youâre arguing for.
AVincentInSpace@pawb.social âš6â© âšmonthsâ© ago
Semantic arguments (which, as you say, do not, ultimately, matter) aside, the point that the Twitter user in the post weâre commenting on was trying to make is that science is best when itâs shared, and that when the results of an experiment are not published, mankind is the lesser for not knowing them. The poster chose to do this in a somewhat drastic way by redefining âscienceâ to exclude experiments whose results were not shared. As many commenters on this post (including yourself) pointed out, this new definition is unnecessarily strict, and that there were much better alternative ways of making this point.
I do, however, agree with the point.
testfactor@lemmy.world âš6â© âšmonthsâ© ago
Absolutely agreed with the sentiment. Collaboration is integral to most scientific endeavors. Especially in the modern era. I think weâre in the same page on that point.
But, like, if the person had asserted something like, âgrilled cheese is only grilled cheese when you eat it with tomato soup,â and then Elon responded with, âthatâs a dumb take, since you can totally have a good grilled cheese without tomato soup,â I donât think itâs âtotally owning himâ to list off a ton of reasons why you believe any grilled cheese without tomato soup is an invalid grilled cheese.
Like, we can all agree that grilled cheese is best with tomato soup. That doesnât change the fact that arbitrarily changing the definition of grilled cheese to be âonly when paired with tomato soup,â is actually just kinda dumb.