Comment

She’s wrong though, everything following the scientific method is science. The fact that you didn’t pay out of your ass to publicize your research doesn’t matter. Of course it reaches less people, but that’s a separate issue.

source

Sort:hotnew top

photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Yann LeCun is a dude

source
- baseless_discourse@mander.xyz ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  With all these “she” talk in this comment section, I was like when did LeCun change gender?
  
  I don’t even do anything remotely related to AI, but I know LeCun is a dude.
  
  source
Honytawk@lemmy.zip ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
The scientific method includes peer reviewing.

You don’t have to post it on a commercial database, only free one will do. But it needs to be accessible by the world.

source
oce@jlai.lu ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Does it require independent peer review though? How do you achieve that with publication? The predatory publication system is a different point.

source
- Mojave@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Wouldn’t this imply that science didn’t exist before academic publication existed? Was zero science conducted before the ~1600s then?
  
  source
  - Zo0@feddit.de ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Well you’re not entirely incorrect with that assumption. What we call science today is actually the Scientific Method Which is a much more skeptical approach to science than the earlier methods, hence the credibility. I like many others agree that the fees built into the system is quiet absurd but currently that is the only legit way to get others evaluate your research.
    
    source
    thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    The word “legit” there is doing alot of work.
    
    source
    Mojave@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I ask with genuine curiosity, as I am not an academic and come from a software development mindset
    
    Why is paid-for services the only “legit” way to get others to evaluate your research? Why is it not kosher to publicly publish your research, and simply invite peers to evaluate it? This idea is essentially the entire process behind Open Source Software, and is the backbone of most modern tools/programs/apps/software/linux development.
    
    What does paying a publishing company provide you, as a researcher, that makes it worth it?
    
    source
  - oce@jlai.lu ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Fair point, I should specify “modern science”. There’s quite a gap of scientific quality between traditional medicine and modern science based medicine for example.
    
    source
  - Objection@lemmy.ml ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    Was zero science conducted before the ~1600s then?
    
    I mean, yes. The framework of studying things that we understand as science did not always exist.
    
    source
    Zehzin@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Every time someone thinks science and studying natural phenomena are the same thing Newton sheds a single tear from his non-poked eye.
    
    source
  - Honytawk@lemmy.zip ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    No, peer reviewing can happen in many ways. But it needs to be public.
    
    Sending letters also allows for peer reviewing.
    
    source
  - yeahiknow3@lemmings.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Before the 20th century most famous physicists referred to themselves as “natural philosophers,” not scientists. The P in PhD is for philosophy. The word “science” refers to a modern social phenomenon, a sort of peer review methodology that generates shared public knowledge.
    
    source
  - SmoothOperator@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Possibly. I can’t come up with any major results that wasn’t either logic, engineering or tradition. But it’s an interesting question. What might count as science before then?
    
    source
    AlpacaChariot@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Pretty sure it was like this:
    
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2xlQaimsGg
    
    source
  - Fedizen@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    not as a discipline. If you publish an experiment to the extent it can be reproduced, it is science, so its happened before but in a less intentional fashion
    
    source
humbletightband@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
There’s no such thing as a scientific method

source
- oce@jlai.lu ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  He probably means the idealized scientific method you learn at school is not what really happens in reality, in particular “soft” science fields may not be able to follow it strictly and still do good science.
  
  source
  - humbletightband@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Doesn’t this difference make the scientific method not real?
    
    source
- Johanno@feddit.de ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  The scientific method varies from field to field. In medicine you usually need to proof it by taking a significant amount people. Then create a control group and a testing group. Then test your medicine on the group and give the other placebos.
  
  When you can measure health improvement for one group over the other there is a reasonable amount of proof that the medicine works.
  
  The scientific method has one major goal. Reduce human made errors in science. Humans do not work objectively. Humans always have an bias. Things like reproduceable tests and peer review try to reduce the bias.
  
  source
  - humbletightband@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Take 10 labs and you’ll get 10 definitions of the scientific method. It’s just a tradition that yields some results.
    
    peer review try to reduce the bias.
    
    Sounds like you haven’t been peer reviewed enough
    
    source
Zehzin@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

everything following the scientific method is science

I’m fairly certain “report conclusions” is a pretty big deal in the scientific method.

source
CptOblivius@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
True a lot of science is done in industry and the corporate world and not published to keep it a trade secret. It is still science but not shared.

source