Comment on Finish him. đȘ
thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca âš5â© âšmonthsâ© agoYour 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The page heading sounds pretty prescriptive, and thatâs about the closest I can find that claims âif itâs not peer reviewed, itâs not science.â The body (IMO rightfully) describes the importance of community involvement in science, but doesnât say anything like âitâs not science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.
yeahiknow3@lemmings.world âš5â© âšmonthsâ© ago
Look, hereâs my point: can you name one scientist, just one, whose work isnât subject to peer review? I canât think of any.
yeahiknow3@lemmings.world âš5â© âšmonthsâ© ago
When I look around my University I see people doing something, letâs call it âscience.â Iâd like to define this activity to distinguish it from similar but different activities. The very fact that my efforts to do so have created a Demarcation Problem means the definition is more convoluted than simply âempirical investigation.â If thatâs all that science was, there wouldnât be a demarcation problem!
Elon Musk seems to âthinkâ (and I use this word very loosely) that science is when people do experiments or try to figure out the truth. But if that were the case, there would be no debate, no demarcation problem, no counter examples.
What we need to do is describe what scientists do that non-scientists donât do with sufficient rigor to distinguish the two groups. As I said, peer review is a salient feature present in one group and absent in the other. Do you have a definition?