1404

submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

246 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Part 1: https://mander.xyz/post/13579080

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

If I publish a book outlining a hypothesis about the origins of the Big Bang, is it not science because it doesn’t have any reproducible experiments?

Yes. It's just a hypothesis. If you could reproduce conditions similar to the big bang and see the same thing happen, then it would be science. If we can look at our universe through our instruments and see that the universe could have formed no other way (or at the very least that this way is by far the most plausible), then those experiments would be science. Speculation on its own, however, is not science.

Is any research that deadends in a uninteresting way that isn’t worthy of publication not science?

I disagree that there could be such research. An anticlimactic conclusion is an important conclusion nonetheless, and no less worthy of publication than an earthshaking one. If people who edit scientific journals disagree they can take it up with me. That team in China that thought they created a superconductor and then found out they hadn't, found out an extremely effective way to not create a superconductor, and now no one needs to try that exact way again.

[-] testfactor@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Fair enough. I'll engage, lol.

Would you say that Sir Isaac Newton was a scientist? His research was almost entirely solo and was of limited release until much later.

Stephen Hawking has no published reproducible experiments as far as I'm aware. Is he not a scientist?

Is someone conducting research into a scientific field a scientist, or are they required to publish something before they can claim that title?

Honestly, I find arguments over how words are defined kind of exhausting, so maybe we should just cut to the heart of the matter. None of the definitions of science I can find in any dictionary include the word collaboration. Do you think that that's a failure of the dictionary? And even if you do, do you think people who are operating under the belief that the dictionary definition is correct are wrong for doing so?

[-] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Semantic arguments (which, as you say, do not, ultimately, matter) aside, the point that the Twitter user in the post we're commenting on was trying to make is that science is best when it's shared, and that when the results of an experiment are not published, mankind as a whole is the lesser for not knowing them. The poster chose to do this in a somewhat drastic way by redefining "science" to exclude experiments whose results were not shared. As many commenters on this post (including yourself) pointed out, this new definition is unnecessarily strict, and that redefining it as such was not necessary in making the point nor ultimately warranted.

I do, however, agree with the point.

[-] testfactor@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

Absolutely agreed with the sentiment. Collaboration is integral to most scientific endeavors. Especially in the modern era. I think we're in the same page on that point.

But, like, if the person had asserted something like, "grilled cheese is only grilled cheese when you eat it with tomato soup," and then Elon responded with, "that's a dumb take, since you can totally have a good grilled cheese without tomato soup," I don't think it's "totally owning him" to list off a ton of reasons why you believe any grilled cheese without tomato soup is an invalid grilled cheese.

Like, we can all agree that grilled cheese is best with tomato soup. That doesn't change the fact that arbitrarily changing the definition of grilled cheese to be "only when paired with tomato soup," is actually just kinda dumb.

[-] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

You mean Sir Isaac Newton, who believed in Alchemy and wrote many things on the subject?

He only became a scientist after his work was peer reviewed.

[-] testfactor@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Believing in alchemy isn't quite the slam dunk you think it is, since at the time we didn't even know atoms existed, lol. It turns out that people who have massive gaps in the information available to them come to wrong conclusions sometimes, lol.

You're just restating the position that I've already argued a ton elsewhere in the thread, so instead I'll ask for a moment of introspection.

Do you believe you would have taken this stance if Elon Musk hadn't taken the opposite one?

You are currently arguing that Isaac Newton wasn't a scientist until that moment someone found his notebooks, at which point he magically became one. You're arguing that none of the people who did the research on nuclear physics during WW2 that led to the development of the atomic bomb were scientists, since none of that research was intended for publication or peer review.

Would you have said Oppenheimer wasn't a scientist outside of the context of this image we're responding to?

At this point I just feel like I'm arguing against people who are knowingly taking a position they never would have taken if not to "own Elon Musk." It's the knee jerk reaction of "I can't agree with that person I hate, so I've gotta argue the opposite."

Which, look, I get the hate and like to see him dunked on as much as the next guy, but it's the definition of arguing in bad faith if you don't actually believe the thing you're arguing for.