Oh yeah strictly speaking if you follow the scientific method you are doing âscienceâ however what the twitter thread is getting at and what Iâm getting at is that science without the scientific process isnât the same thing. Typically in a professional setting we just call that research.
The scientific process contains the scientific methods but there is an aspect of connection to the scientific community. Iâd argue that if youâre using a company to build and develop a working base of knowledge through the scientific method, youâre failing at the building and organizing knowledge part of that science definition by not sharing what you know.
Wintex@lemm.ee âš4â© âšweeksâ© ago
I donât particularly agree. Publishing is a tricky thing in the private sector, and weâve seen a lot of scientific suppression by companies. Peer review literally requires the field to assess your work, and doesnât end with the publication, but is a process that continues forever. Reproduction is a major issue, especially in fields proximal to mine (neuroscience , Medicine and psychology) and the whole process of open science with this type of review process makes it much easier to create papers that are reproducible.
The external influence is basically a given to produce science that holds up.
kernelle@lemmy.world âš4â© âšweeksâ© ago
I agree though, we can argue open science is much better and more reliable. We can argue privatly conducting a study and doing all the steps that would be conducted by the academic community within one organisation leads to more biased and less reliable results. But itâs still science by its very definition, Iâd even argue denying that is a bit disrespectful to all scientists doing so.