See any textbook on the Philosophy of Science.
The irony of plebs arguing among themselves over the definition of science without any notion of the preceding centuries of debate is absolutely delicious, btw.
Comment on Finish him. đȘ
thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca âš5â© âšmonthsâ© agoScience is a particular method of peer reviewâŠ?
This thread prompted me to revisit what I think âscienceâ means, and Iâve been through a number of different Wikipedia pages, dictionary definitions, etc. but that inquiry just reinforced that this âscience == participation in the institutions/communities of scienceâ idea just doesnât seem to hold up.
Where does this idea come from? I keep seeing this âscience is this very particular thing, itâs not just forming falsifiable hypotheses and then testing them,â but then when I look it up, the sources I find say exactly the opposite.
yeahiknow3@lemmings.world âš5â© âšmonthsâ© ago
thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca âš5â© âšmonthsâ© ago
Oh thanks for editing in an example-- that wasnât there when I wrote my reply, but what did you think of the other Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy links I provided?
That article that you linked (Scientific Pluralism) is an interesting read, but itâs more about the importance of diversity in the scientific community⊠it doesnât really address the Demarcation Problem, and it doesnât discuss peer review or anything as far as I could tell.
Mentioning in passing that âscience is socialâ (which is IMO uncontroversially true in a non-demarcation way, btw) is a few shades away from âany textbook will tell you that science is a particular process of peer review.â I think the Science and Pseudo-Science entry that I linked is more germane.
yeahiknow3@lemmings.world âš5â© âšmonthsâ© ago
Iâm not sure what we are arguing about here. The concept of âscienceâ is fairly new and most people we would think of as âscientistsâ throughout history, such as Newton, actually thought of themselves as natural philosophers, hence the P in PhD. The modern concept of science arose as a kind of description of something humans do together. âScienceâ doesnât mean figuring out the truth. That wouldnât make any sense, because philosophy, logic, mathematics, etc, are all concerned with figuring out the truth as well. Science is an institution, a social endeavor (except when it isnât? Need counter examples). The royal academy of sciences was created for that reason, funny enough â because Francis Bacon has pointed out what I just did, that science requires an intellectual community (letâs be honest, humans are fairly dumb on their own â imagine having to invent mathematics from scratch just to do physics).
Anyway, in the mid 1950s there was a now famous work by Thomas Kuhn called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions which added an extra layer to the debate when he pointed out aspects of âscienceâ that seem to be⊠not about finding the truth at all. But Iâm guessing you already know that. Human beings are driven by many motivations, after all, and finding the truth is rarely one of them.
Anyway, the demarcation problem, yes: itâs very difficult to come up with a definition that perfectly picks out legitimate science without also applying to pseudo nonsense (see Pigliucciâs Nonsense on Stilts). That said, we know what is and isnât science. We are just having trouble coming up with a perfect definition that works every time.
Incidentally, having trouble defining science is literally my position. Science is something we do that isnât as tidy and uncomplicated as âfiguring out the truth.â It clearly involves some sort of methodology and it clearly involves people checking each otherâs work and so on and so forth, and itâs different from math and different from astrology. You tell me how you want to define it, but it sure as shit isnât âdoing stuff in oneâs garage alone without writing it down or reproducing the results â
thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca âš5â© âšmonthsâ© ago
Your desire to collapse all fact-finding into the concept of âscienceâ
Well thatâs a reach. I had to buy a new laptop charger and find facts about what voltage, etc. I needed⊠I certainly donât consider that fact-finding exercise to be science, and I donât think I said anything to suggest that.
But okay, I donât have a textbook handy, but letâs see what we can find out about the Philosophy of Science:
Philosophy of Science - Wikipedia
Seems to pretty clearly indicate âlots of interesting and useful ideas, no consensus.â Peer review mentioned 0 times. The âDefining Scienceâ section links to a page for the demarcation problem, so letâs go look at that.
Demarcation Problem - Wikipedia
âThe debate continues after more than two millennia of dialogue among philosophers of science and scientists in various fields.â
And the article basically continues to that effect, IMO: Demarcation is difficult, unclear, and there is no consensus. Peer review mentioned 0 times.
Maybe itâs just Wikipedia that has this misconception. Letâs check some other sources.
The Philosophy of Science - UC Berkeley, Understanding Science 101
âDespite this diversity of opinion, philosophers of science can largely agree on one thing: there is no single, simple way to define science!â
Re: Demarcation problem:
âModern philosophers of science largely agree that there is no single, simple criterion that can be used to demarcate the boundaries of science.â
Starting to sound familiar. Lots of opinions from Aristotle to Cartwright, none of whom highlight peer review or acceptance by the institutions as criteria. The page does talk about empiricism, parsimony, falsification, etc. though, consistent with other sources.
Glossary - âscienceâ - UC Berkeley, Understanding Science 101
This one is simple:
Our knowledge of the natural world and the process through which that knowledge is built. The process of science relies on the testing of ideas with evidence gathered from the natural world. Science as a whole cannot be precisely defined but can be broadly described by a set of key characteristics. To learn more, visit A science checklist.
Letâs look at the checklist.
Science is embedded in the scientific community - UC Berkeley, Understanding Science 101
The page heading sounds pretty prescriptive, and thatâs about the closest I can find that claims âif itâs not peer reviewed, itâs not science.â The body (IMO rightfully) describes the importance of community involvement in science, but doesnât say anything like âitâs not science unless it involves the community.â
Take this excerpt about Gregor Mendel:
However, even in such cases [as Gregor Mendelâs], research must ultimately involve the scientific community if that work is to have any impact on the progress of science.
So yes, sharing his findings with the world was why it was able to have an impact, but I donât think itâs reasonable to interpret that he wasnât doing science while he was working in isolation, or that it only became science retroactively after it was a) shared, and b) accepted.
Letâs take a look at another textbook and see what it says:
1.6: Science and Non-Science - Introduction to History and Philosophy of Science
This chapter suggests that you can take two approaches to demarcation:
- What makes a theory scientific or non-scientific?
- What makes a âchange in a scientific mosaicâ scientific?
For theories - Theyâre clear that there are no clear universal demarcation criteria, but offer these suggestions:
- Suggestion 1: An empirical theory is scientific if it is based on experience.
- Suggestion 2: An empirical theory is considered scientific if it explains all the known facts of its domain.
- Suggestion 3: An empirical theory is scientific if it explains, by and large, the known facts of its domain.
For changes - This pertains specifically to whether a change to âa scientific mosaicâ is scientific or not, which necessarily pertains to a scientific community. But Iâd argue that this analysis seems pretty clearly downstream of a priori participation in a scientific community, not attempting to define science as such.
Didnât read the whole textbook, so I might still be missing something, but the focus in the chapter is still definitely on the properties of the inquiry, not on the scientific institutions surrounding it.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Also looked at the entries for Scientific Method and Pseudo-science, which seem to be consistent with the other sources
TL;DR/Conclusion
So Iâm still getting a really strong signal that:
- Science/non-science doesnât have a clear demarcation line, and that problem is called the Demarcation Problem. It has a special name because itâs still a big deal.
- Ideas about what is science vs. non-science focus mostly on the properties of the inquiry: Is it a testable, falsifiable hypothesis that can be investigated with empirical observations?
- Scientific communities are still super important, and you can make statements about how scientific activity should interact with communities, but community involvement is not usually a factor in demarcation
- Peer review is useful and stuff, but has little interaction with the science/non-science demarcation question⊠I donât think it came up in any of the sources I looked at
So⊠Do I still seem misguided? Are Wikipedia and UC Berkeley and this textbook called âIntroduction to History and Philosophy of Scienceâ and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy all also misguided? Or am I just interpreting them wrong?
Like I started this investigation feeling 100% ready to learn that my concept of âwhat Science isâ was misguided⊠But idk, I did a bunch of reading based on your suggestion, and I gotta say I feel pretty guided right now.
If you wanna throw something else to read my way though, Iâll happily have a look at it.
yeahiknow3@lemmings.world âš5â© âšmonthsâ© ago
You should publish your findings and collect your Nobel prize. Youâve solved philosophy.
thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca âš5â© âšmonthsâ© ago
Thatâs not like a big gotcha, lol⊠Those checklist items correspond directly to section headings, and I quoted the even-more-strongly-worded section heading directly.
In fact, I included it as the best evidence I found for your point: That if I read any textbook on the philosopy of science, it will spell out how âscienceâ is âa particular method of peer review.â Well⊠I found some evidence that kind of points that way, and a whole boatload that suggests that that isnât really thought of as part of the Demarcation Problem. I wasnât going in trying to âbe right,â thatâs just what I found.
Like I put quite a bit of work in good faith to try to understand where youâre coming from, but I donât feel like youâre trying to meet me half way.
testfactor@lemmy.world âš5â© âšmonthsâ© ago
I think this theory of science is so prevalent in this thread because you have to adhere to it in order to dunk on Elon Musk.
I doubt most of these ardents would have taken this position in a random thread about sea cucumbers or something.
I like dunking on Musk as much as the next guy, but the amount of double-think people are willing to commit to to do it is always pretty off-putting to me.
Itâs like every ArsTechnica article on SpaceX has people come out of the woodwork to say that their accomplishments are trash and not even worth reporting because of Elon, which, like, you have to be delusional if you donât think SpaceX is absolutely killing it.