You're viewing a single thread.
The rules and conventions to do science today are quite well known and understood by educated people (including of course Helen Mosque) ... but any rules have exceptions :
Project Manhattan to produce the atomic bomb was secret science : in many countries military will have secret science development. Pharmaceutical companies will do as well.
People in those projects will not have recognition by the wider public but they will have recognition from their group.yes, but even within those "secret groups", there are SOP and conventions of intergrity.
Thanks ! ... if anyone else wants to know :
SOP stands for Standard Operating Procedure. Within secret scientific research groups, SOPs are established guidelines or instructions for carrying out routine operations to ensure consistency, quality, and compliance with regulations. These SOPs help maintain integrity, confidentiality, and efficiency within the research group.Secret scientific research groups? Lol. Anyone with a passing familiarity with government work knows about SOPs.
GPT told me it was "Standard Operating Procedure" in the context of the previous comment. That wasn enough for me. I didn't have to know it applies to your job in an English speaking country.
You're over here asking GPT about "secret scientific research groups" but wanna point out that it's an English acronym? You could've asked Encyclopedia Britannica instead and gotten the right answer.
Heck, I can think of a half dozen other examples of things that aren't published and/or can't be reproduced but would be considered science.
If I had an unpublished workbook of Albert Einstein, would I say the work in it "isn't science"?
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?
Is any research that deadends in a uninteresting way that isn't worthy of publication not science?
I like dunking on Elon as much as the next guy, but like, "only things that are published get the title of 'science'" seems like a pretty indefensible take to me...
i agree because what I usually mean when i talk of science is scientific work even if this work doesn't result in proving that an hypothesis is right so that it becomes a scientific theory.
For me the main criteria is to follow the scientific method.How about all the research that goes into microchips in modern computers? All extremely secretive. Using published science only, it would be impossible to create today's PC or phone
Another great example.
I'd say it's just research. Science is a group activity by necessity, even if the scientific method is not.
What makes science a group activity by necessity?
Why is one person employing the scientific method to better understand the world around them "not doing science"?
Well, modern science is interdisciplinary, it relies on resource sharing and peer review to reach consensus, which all require many people. In practice, it's merely research without collaboration if contributions aren't being made because Science isn't defined when you apply the scientific method. Science is what we do collectively. So when offshoot research is vetted, it becomes part of the science.
This reminds me of a few people I've met who believe themselves to be scientists who claim to do science by themselves, but in reality, it's numerology nonsense. They're arguably researching a system they invented but nobody worth their weight would take them seriously.
Why is one person employing the scientific method to better understand the world around them “not doing science”?
Why is "research" not the appropriate label?
So, first and foremost it is important to recognize we are having a definition argument. The crux of our disagreement is over the definition of "science," specifically as it relates to the act of doing it.
Now, obviously anyone can claim that any word means anything they want. I can claim that the definition of "doing science" is making grilled cheese sandwiches. That doesn't make it so.
So, as with all arguments over the definition of words, I find appealing to the dictionary a good place to start. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science Which, having read through all the possible definitions, does not seem to carry any connotation of mandatory collaboration.
Now, the dictionary is obviously not the be all and end all. Words have colloquial meanings that are sometimes not captured, or nuance can be lost in transcribing the straight meaning of the word. But I think that the onus is on you to justify why you believe that meaning is lost.
And note, what I'm not arguing is that science isn't collaborative. Of course it is. There are huge benefits to collaboration, and it is very much the norm. But you have stated an absolute. "Science isn't science without collaboration." And that is the crux of our disagreement.
And as to why I wouldn't just call it "research." First, I see no reason to. By both my colloquial definition and the one in the dictionary (by my estimation), it is in fact science. But, more importantly, if we take your definition, you are relegating the likes of great scientists like Newton, Cavendish, Mendel, and Killing to the title of mere "researchers." And I find the idea of calling any of those greats anything short of a scientist absurdly reductive.
I mostly agree with you.
But you have stated an absolute. “Science isn’t science without collaboration.”
I don't think that's what I'm saying, at least, that's not my stance. I'm trying to say that how we formally define Science is one thing. But in practice, Science can only be collaborative because of the complexity of topics, the nuance that needs to be captured in experimental design, and the human error that needs to be avoided. There's also the connotation that science is the collective body beyond its works that encompasses a community, a culture, a history, a way of thinking, and so on. If you're "doing science", then we have the mutual understanding that you're participating in all of the above, because otherwise, you're just conducting independent research that could eventually find its way into the whole.
But if it doesn't ever find its way into the greater body of science, how can we label that as doing science if it hasn't made an impact besides personal profits? And even if those findings work as advertised in a product, how do we know that the hand-waiving explanation in this black box isn't true? It does nothing for our understanding. I won't argue that it works as a colloquial term because a theory could mean whatever possibility popped into someone's head even if it's wrong. Strictly speaking, a theory is much more than a plausible thought and I think that analogy carries on.
you are relegating the likes of great scientists like Newton, Cavendish, Mendel, and Killing to the title of mere “researchers.”
That's a relic of what worked back then but their independent research eventually made it into the science, which is consistent with what I'm saying. Labeling them as researchers takes nothing away from their great achievements. I see no issue with calling an apple a fruit when broadly speaking.
If you aren't saying that "science isn't science without collaboration," can you give an example of something that is science without collaboration? I only ask because you state that's not what you're saying, but follow it up with what, to my attempt at reading comprehension, is you just restating the thing you said you aren't saying.
And I would argue science done in secret can have enormous impacts beyond "simply profits." The Manhattan Project for example. I think it would be absurd to say what was going on there was anything but science, but there was no collaboration with the greater scientific community or intent to share their findings.
And look, of course you can be a researcher without being a scientist. Historians are researchers but not scientists obviously. But when what you are researching is physics and natural sciences, you are a scientist. That's what the word literally means. When your definition requires you to eliminate Sir Isaac Newton, maybe it's your definition that's wrong.
You say you see no problem with calling an apple a fruit when broadly speaking. Neither do I. But that doesn't mean that I wouldn't be absolutely delusional to insist that an apple wasn't actually an apple.
I'm so sorry but you're getting unnecessarily aggressive over this. I don't wish to participate or waste my time with someone who will willfully ignore or misinterpret what I'm saying. All your answers are above if you care to see things from my point of view. Thanks for the chat.
I reread my post and I'm not sure what you took as aggressive? That I used the word delusional? I didn't intend that to be harsh, but sorry if it came across that way.
But, in my experience, arguments over how words are defined are usually unproductive because language is inherently arbitrary, so I'm fine calling it here. I doubt we'd make any progress.
I hope life is treating you well and you have a pleasant evening.
Your argument seemed perfectly reasonable. I think it was just a classic case of the discomfort of someone pointing out cognitive dissonance being misinterpreted as aggression.
I do wonder if this is a case of the in-group has repurposed a word to make it more useful to them. Perhaps inside modern academia science means published in a scientific journal. Even though outside that group to use the word like that would seem wrong.
Because you can't employ the scientific method with only one person.
You need at least 2 to perform peer reviews.
Peer review isn't typically included in the list of steps to the scientific method. Or, if it is, it's a coda, not part of the main steps.
Dictionary.com for example lists the commonly accepted steps, and then follows it up with "usually followed by peer review and publication."
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/scientific-method
Note the "usually."
It's also worth noting that there is no real "formalized" or "official" scientific method. Just some agreed upon commonalities. Any dozen science books will give you a dozen different graphs of the steps, and no two will be the same.
If I had an unpublished workbook of Albert Einstein, would I say the work in it “isn’t science”?
I would say it isn't science yet. I'd say once you published it and other people confirmed he was right, then it would be science. Until then it's just research. Stating that it must be right just because Albert Einstein said it is disrespectful to the work of a lot of people, not least of whom is Albert Einstein
Do you also assert that my other two examples aren't science?
If so, why?
If not, then I feel like my point still stands and don't feel strongly enough to argue semantics over this particular one.
Ultimately this is a fight over the definition of words, and I think 99.9% of people (and the dictionary) would define all my examples as science. If you want to split the hair of saying, "that wasn't science, it was just scientific research," have at it, but I'll just call you a pedant, lol.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.