Fair point, I should specify âmodern scienceâ. Thereâs quite a gap of scientific quality between traditional medicine and modern science based medicine for example.
Comment on Finish him. đȘ
Mojave@lemmy.world âš5â© âšmonthsâ© agoWouldnât this imply that science didnât exist before academic publication existed? Was zero science conducted before the ~1600s then?
oce@jlai.lu âš5â© âšmonthsâ© ago
Objection@lemmy.ml âš5â© âšmonthsâ© 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.
Zehzin@lemmy.world âš5â© âšmonthsâ© ago
Every time someone thinks science and studying natural phenomena are the same thing Newton sheds a single tear from his non-poked eye.
Honytawk@lemmy.zip âš5â© âšmonthsâ© ago
No, peer reviewing can happen in many ways. But it needs to be public.
Sending letters also allows for peer reviewing.
yeahiknow3@lemmings.world âš5â© âšmonthsâ© ago
Before the 20th century most famous physicists referred to themselves as ânatural philosophers,â not scientists. The P in PhD is for philosophy. The word âscienceâ refers to a modern social phenomenon, a sort of peer review methodology that generates shared public knowledge.
SmoothOperator@lemmy.world âš5â© âšmonthsâ© ago
Possibly. I canât come up with any major results that wasnât either logic, engineering or tradition. But itâs an interesting question. What might count as science before then?
AlpacaChariot@lemmy.world âš5â© âšmonthsâ© ago
Pretty sure it was like this:
Fedizen@lemmy.world âš5â© âšmonthsâ© 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
Zo0@feddit.de âš5â© âšmonthsâ© ago
Well youâre 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.
thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca âš5â© âšmonthsâ© ago
The word âlegitâ there is doing alot of work.
Mojave@lemmy.world âš5â© âšmonthsâ© 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 âlegitâ 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?