• MuchPineapples@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    91
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    5 months ago

    She’s wrong though, everything following the scientific method is science. The fact that you didn’t pay out of your ass to publicize your research doesn’t matter. Of course it reaches less people, but that’s a separate issue.

    • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      The scientific method includes peer reviewing.

      You don’t have to post it on a commercial database, only free one will do. But it needs to be accessible by the world.

    • oce 🐆
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Does it require independent peer review though? How do you achieve that with without publication? The predatory publication system is a different point.

      Edit: fix without

      • Mojave@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        Wouldn’t this imply that science didn’t exist before academic publication existed? Was zero science conducted before the ~1600s then?

        • Zo0@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Well you’re not entirely incorrect with that assumption. What we call science today is actually the Scientific Method Which is a much more skeptical approach to science than the earlier methods, hence the credibility. I like many others agree that the fees built into the system is quiet absurd and the process is not perfect, but currently that is the only legit way to get others evaluate your research.

          • Mojave@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            I ask with genuine curiosity, as I am not an academic and come from a software development mindset

            Why is paid-for services the only “legit” way to get others to evaluate your research? Why is it not kosher to publicly publish your research, and simply invite peers to evaluate it? This idea is essentially the entire process behind Open Source Software, and is the backbone of most modern tools/programs/apps/software/linux development.

            What does paying a publishing company provide you, as a researcher, that makes it worth it?

            • Zo0@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              I don’t know what to tell you man, sometimes even I wonder if it’s worth it at all. Publishing to a journal is such a difficult task. Before submitting your paper you need the approval of two other well-established individuals. Then you send in your paper to your selected journal and each one has some specific format and policies, which many are arbitrary and inthe end of the day depends on the person reviewing your paper. This can take weeks of back and forth.

              However if you think you did something noteworthy, as far as I know, this is how you get it in front of the eyes of your peers. Even then there’s a chance that your paper gets ignored lol.

              So like many others in this thread, I’m not a fan of this process because even though it’s strict, a lot of bs still passes through

        • oce 🐆
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Fair point, I should specify “modern science”. There’s quite a gap of scientific quality between traditional medicine and modern science based medicine for example.

        • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          No, peer reviewing can happen in many ways. But it needs to be public.

          Sending letters also allows for peer reviewing.

        • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Was zero science conducted before the ~1600s then?

          I mean, yes. The framework of studying things that we understand as science did not always exist.

          • Patapon Enjoyer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Every time someone thinks science and studying natural phenomena are the same thing Newton sheds a single tear from his non-poked eye.

        • SmoothOperator@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Possibly. I can’t come up with any major results that wasn’t either logic, engineering or tradition. But it’s an interesting question. What might count as science before then?

        • Fedizen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          not as a discipline. If you publish an experiment to the extent it can be reproduced, it is science, so its happened before but in a less intentional fashion

        • yeahiknow3@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Before the 20th century most famous physicists referred to themselves as “natural philosophers,” not scientists. The P in PhD is for philosophy. The word “science” refers to a modern social phenomenon, a sort of peer-review methodology that generates shared public knowledge.

    • Patapon Enjoyer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      everything following the scientific method is science

      I’m fairly certain “report conclusions” is a pretty big deal in the scientific method. Principle of verifiability and all that.

    • CptOblivius@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      True a lot of science is done in industry and the corporate world and not published to keep it a trade secret. It is still science but not shared.

      • oce 🐆
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        5 months ago

        He probably means the idealized scientific method you learn at school is not what really happens in reality, in particular “soft” science fields may not be able to follow it strictly and still do good science.

      • Johanno@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        The scientific method varies from field to field. In medicine you usually need to proof it by taking a significant amount people. Then create a control group and a testing group. Then test your medicine on the group and give the other placebos.

        When you can measure health improvement for one group over the other there is a reasonable amount of proof that the medicine works.

        The scientific method has one major goal. Reduce human made errors in science. Humans do not work objectively. Humans always have an bias. Things like reproduceable tests and peer review try to reduce the bias.

        • humbletightband@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          5 months ago

          Take 10 labs and you’ll get 10 definitions of the scientific method. It’s just a tradition that yields some results.

          peer review try to reduce the bias.

          Sounds like you haven’t been peer reviewed enough