Comment

thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

That’s 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 “science” is “a particular method of peer review.” Well… I found some evidence that kind of points that way, and a whole boatload that suggests that that isn’t really thought of as part of the Demarcation Problem. I wasn’t going in trying to “be right,” that’s just what I found.

Like I put quite a bit of work in good faith to try to understand where you’re coming from, but I don’t feel like you’re trying to meet me half way.

source

Sort:hotnew top

yeahiknow3@lemmings.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
Look, here’s my point: can you name one scientist, just one, whose work isn’t subject to peer review? I can’t think of any.

source
yeahiknow3@lemmings.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
When I look around my University I see people doing something, let’s call it “science.” I’d 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 “empirical investigation.” If that’s all that science was, there wouldn’t be a demarcation problem!

Elon Musk seems to “think” (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 don’t 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?

source