1400

submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

244 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

[-] qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website 102 points 3 months ago

I like the sentiment, but there are non-peer reviewed papers that are real science. Politics and funding are real things, and there is a bit of gatekeeping here, which isn't really good IMHO.

Also, reproducibility is a sticky subject, especially with immoral experiments (which can still be the product of science, however unsavory), or experiments for which there are only one apparatus in the world (e.g., some particle physics).

[-] CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago

The things you’re describing are not science. This might seem nit picky but the scientific method as we know it today require that peer review and require methods of reproduction. Whether you can reproduce results is a different story.

The entire difference between research and science is whether or not you engage in the process of peer review and review often requires method of replication. So you usually can’t have one without the other. If you aren’t trying to have your paper reviewed by your peers, that’s fine, but that isn’t science.

To address the gatekeeping, I get it. We shouldn’t be using the word to demean people who do valuable research but don’t strictly engage in the scientific process. That’s really not important to do. However we should all be interested in preventing the scientific process from being muddied to include every R&D process under the sun. That’s all research, not science, and we call them separate things for a reason.

[-] WhatIsH2O4@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago

Counterpoint: the scientific method is much simpler than you described.

Fuck around
Find out
Write it down

The rest are details of the above or elitism.

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

I think the sticking point is this: if people can't reproduce it then you missed writing down an important detail and therefore didn't finish step 3.

The elitism is thinking peer review suffices for reproducibility.

[-] WhatIsH2O4@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago

I agree with you last point, and I really, really want to with the first.

Sometimes science feels more like an art, for chemistry at least. I suppose the counter-point to this is: if you provide sufficient detail to reproduce but your results are still difficult to reproduce reliably by others, then your process wasn't very robust and should have undergone more development before publishing. Those details may be so minor that you don't even realize that you overlooked something.