You're viewing a single thread.
Seems like a very elitist and gatekeeping perspective, specially considering how closed off the academic world is for the rest of society in some places, never mind expensive to publish. It's also basically saying that if you, say, come up with a groundbreaking hypothesis, that that's not science until you get a research paper out, and that might require mastery that goes beyond the hypothesis.
Sure, this might stop most of the looney theories from being called Science, but it also prevents public access in favor of those with the means and capacity to sustain an ever more complex geocentric model of the fashion of the times, from which any divergent theories must generally part from or involve renown in.
You think the person who made that hypothesis will die bitter and forgotten? Is that the general view of people who are not Scientists by Scientists? They might know what's up, and might not want the gatekeeper to take all the credit, as is often the case in academic circles, and might just feel satisfaction in seeing their hypothesis gratified. They might place more importance in exploring and understanding reality than compensating for personal insecurities. Perhaps it is science itself that might stagnate by stalling until it itself is able to discover these hypothesis under the properly accepted emeritus when they are eventually able to get to it.
Mostly it's just looney theories, but given Musk is involved, I imagine this discussion involves proprietary patents that do have a lot of research involved and under peer review of teams under non-disclosure agreements. Then again, it's Musk, could be mostly looney theories too. But the fact that it involves Musk, the man living off of Nikola Tesla's fame, a man whose demise could have been described to have occurred under the circumstances of a bitter and forgotten end, makes the gatekeeping particularly ironic.
It doesn't need to be published in a scientific journal. Publication in journals is the most streamlined way to go through the process, but you could publish your hypothesis and methodology to a blog and potentially get the same benefits.
Even patents need to be published. Publication is how discoveries are shared and verified.
I often fantasize about guerilla science done by serious people outside of official channels. While there are plenty of crackpots who desire this for political reasons, I would really like to see an open-source "journal" by and for those scientists who are in it purely for science and have become disenchanted with the current model which is compromised in some ways that prevents progress on certain concepts.
That's how things work in the AI community. Publications all go through various conferences and journals that are free to submit to. In many of these avenues, if you submit something, the cost is to get a certain number of papers reviewed (not necessarily doing it yourself, but you have to find someone capable of doing it). The publications are then made freely available for anyone to read. Everything is organized by the research community for the benefit of that same community.
To be fair, it would probably be full of crackpot theories, which would make anything released on it a crackpot theory by association. Unless it involves a heavy but fair dose of educated moderation, and it's already hard enough to simply get moderators that don't simply want to reenact the Stanford prison experiment.
Not necessarily. Just because my theoretical journal wouldn't be subject to the existing academic establishment it does not mean it would accept everything. This journal would be more rigorous because it would be composed exclusively by fidelity to the scientific process. I am not anti-academia, only acknowledging that the existing structures are so large and composed of so many egos that there is necessarily over-focus on some areas and under-focus on other areas as a consequence of the structure. My pretend journal wouldn't be for everyone rejected from those institutions for explicit reasons of incompetence, it would be for those scientists who want to pool resources to do work that would not be easy to support on the current academic model.
How to you vet papers that are being submitted?
If it is outside of your specific experience, how do you get someone else who is specialised to vet the paper?Fortunately I don't need to have all the answers in my imaginary journal. I imagine it more as a cooperative enterprise among scientists who have become disenchanted with established academic paradigms and are looking to do the research and experimentation in that zone which is of interest to scientists themselves but not necessarily supported by the need to publish in the areas most emphasized by the academic establishment. This is not anything against what exists and what is being produced which I personally consider to be important, only to provide additional avenues to serve science in ways it's not currently being served.
You're right that credentials in this model are fuzzy. At least at the beginning it would be composed exclusively of scientists already working in their field who would want something like this. It could be possible that these scientists answering only to their immediate guerilla journal peers may see fit to support the research of an individual with no doctorate but who has demonstrated their self-education has made them capable of designing an experiment which can be quantified, criticized, and re-produced. Whether this standard would be agreed upon by the greater community would certainly be controversial with plenty of politics involved, but that reality it outside of the scope of my daydream.
As for the sustainability, it's as in question as any open source project. It lives and dies based on peoples' desire to do it only because they want to do it and others want to support them doing it. This couldn't be a career alternative to academia because making it into a business or non-profit would defeat the purpose as it would attain the same vulnerabilities to a much more severe degree than the much larger and stable existing model.
How the Linux kernel "made it" and is still free and open source is - imo - one of the pinnacles of humanity.
It's inspired so much other software to adopt the same philosophy, and modern humanity/science/society stands on those shoulders.I think science has missed that boat.
Or that pinnacle was before the tools to support such an open source atmosphere/community were around... So not missed the boat, but swam before the boat was builtThere are probably more obstacles to my daydream than I'm aware of. That being said there is nothing static about science. Comparing what we're doing now to what we were doing a century ago, two centuries ago, and three centuries ago we might as well be comparing completely separate enterprises based on almost completely different fundamentals. Academia has never been as organized and wide-reaching as it is today so it may seem like a monolith, but it's a new monolith which I'm not sure will remain exactly as it is for long (relatively). I think there's some room for experimentation.
You would still need to be recognized before someone more recognizable takes it and sticks their name on it the moment they see any validity in it. Plagiarism isn't a myth, and good luck getting recognition even just for a hypothesis without a master and just as a hobbyist.
Academics want a well prepared research paper without evidencing crude freshman mistakes, and by its nature yours might be far cruder than academic standards. Even if you do end up releasing it and if it does by some miracle get acknowledged, it will by its nature take longer and run more risks from a lack of peer review that might discard it due to simple but correctable mistakes while running the risk of getting it plagiarized by someone capable of fixing it up, and no one is going to take a random blog as the proof of a preexisting theory over a research paper with a name with some masters to it that claims the idea was entirely theirs shortly thereafter. And if all you care about is the study of reality and science, why risk the heartbreak of getting personally involved?
Patents don't need to be a full comprehensive research pieces, they just have to be enough to define and identify particular intellectual property.
It's free to publish.
never mind expensive to publish.
Academic world is very not happy about it either. Academic world hates journals publishing corporations.
See lawsuits against ResearchGate, lawsuits against Sci-Hub and lawsuits against many students and academics that shared scientific papers.
This is why the machine learning community will go through ArXiv for pretty much everything. We value open and honest communication and abhor knowledge being locked down. This is why he views things this way. Because he's involved in a community that values real science.
ArXiv is free and all modern science should be open. There were reasons for publications in the past, since knowledge dissemination was hard, and they facilitated it. Now the publications just gatekeep.
ArXiv, bioRxiv and cyberleninka.
EDIT: Today I Learned that cyberleninka now has English version of it at cyberleninka.org
Science is a specific social activity that humans engage in (emphasis on social). Science is not the same as fact-finding, or philosophizing, or reasoning. It’s a particular method of peer review that generates shared public knowledge.
Again, “science” is something humans do together. Experimenting, investigating, puzzling, hypothesizing, intuiting, discovering, and knowing are all things you can do alone.
Science is a particular method of peer review...?
This thread prompted me to revisit what I think "science" means, and I've been through a number of different Wikipedia pages, dictionary definitions, etc. but that inquiry just reinforced that this "science == participation in the institutions/communities of science" idea just doesn't seem to hold up.
Where does this idea come from? I keep seeing this "science is this very particular thing, it's not just forming falsifiable hypotheses and then testing them," but then when I look it up, the sources I find say exactly the opposite.
EDIT: To respond, backwards, to the edit below, I guess...? That's not really a gotcha, and not really what I was saying, lol. Please read the whole thread.
I think this theory of science is so prevalent in this thread because you have to adhere to it in order to dunk on Elon Musk.
I doubt most of these ardents would have taken this position in a random thread about sea cucumbers or something.
I like dunking on Musk as much as the next guy, but the amount of double-think people are willing to commit to to do it is always pretty off-putting to me.
It's like every ArsTechnica article on SpaceX has people come out of the woodwork to say that their accomplishments are trash and not even worth reporting because of Elon, which, like, you have to be delusional if you don't think SpaceX is absolutely killing it.
Lol I think you're onto something. Maybe better off sticking to sea cucumber posts.
It did make me learn some things, though. The person who I was responding to told me to "See any textbook on the Philosophy of Science," so I did, and I learned about the Demarcation Problem, Logical Positivism, and some new Karl Popper ideas. So, it has not led to a collaborative discussion, but it was pretty interesting, and I'm much more confident now about what's reasonable to say about what "counts as Science." Time well spent, IMO.
(In case you were wondering: Any activity performed while wearing safety goggles or glasses is technically science.)
See any textbook on the Philosophy of Science.
For example, here is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
“Science is a complex epistemic and social practice that is organized in a large number of disciplines, employs a dazzling variety of methods, relies on heterogeneous conceptual and ontological resources, and pursues diverse goals of equally diverse research communities.”
Your desire to collapse all fact-finding into the concept of “science” is misguided. If everything is “science” then nothing is “science.”
Oh thanks for editing in an example-- that wasn't there when I wrote my reply, but what did you think of the other Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy links I provided?
That article that you linked (Scientific Pluralism) is an interesting read, but it's more about the importance of diversity in the scientific community... it doesn't really address the Demarcation Problem, and it doesn't discuss peer review or anything as far as I could tell.
Mentioning in passing that "science is social" (which is IMO uncontroversially true in a non-demarcation way, btw) is a few shades away from "any textbook will tell you that science is a particular process of peer review." I think the Science and Pseudo-Science entry that I linked is more germane.
I’m not sure what we are arguing about here. The concept of “science” is fairly new and most people we would think of as “scientists” throughout history, such as Newton, actually considered themselves natural philosophers, hence the P in PhD. The modern concept of science arose as a kind of description of something humans do together. “Science” doesn’t mean figuring out the truth. That wouldn’t make any sense, because philosophy, logic, mathematics, etc, are all concerned with figuring out the truth as well. Science is an institution, a social endeavor (except when it isn’t — need counter examples). The Royal Academy of Sciences was created for that reason, funny enough — because Francis Bacon had pointed out that “science requires an intellectual community” (let’s be honest, humans are fairly dumb on their own — standing on the shoulders of giants and all that).
Anyway, in the mid 1950s there was a now famous work by Thomas Kuhn called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions which added an extra layer to the debate when he pointed out aspects of “science” that seem to be… not about finding the truth at all. But I’m guessing you already know that. Human beings are driven by many motivations, after all, and finding the truth is rarely one of them.
Anyway, the demarcation problem, yes: it’s very difficult to come up with a definition that perfectly picks out legitimate science without also applying to pseudo nonsense (see Pigliucci‘s Nonsense on Stilts). That said, we know what is and isn’t science. We are just having trouble coming up with a perfect definition that works every time.
Incidentally, having trouble defining science is literally my position. Science is something we do that isn’t as tidy and uncomplicated as “figuring out the truth.” It clearly involves some sort of methodology and it clearly involves people checking each other’s work and so on and so forth, and it’s different from math and different from astrology. You tell me how you want to define it, but it sure as shit isn’t “doing stuff in one’s garage alone without writing it down or reproducing the results,“ which is what Elon Musk seems to think.
Your desire to collapse all fact-finding into the concept of “science”
Well that's a reach. I had to buy a new laptop charger and find facts about what voltage, etc. I needed... I certainly don't consider that fact-finding exercise to be science, and I don't think I said anything to suggest that.
But okay, I don't have a textbook handy, but let's see what we can find out about the Philosophy of Science:
Philosophy of Science - Wikipedia
Seems to pretty clearly indicate "lots of interesting and useful ideas, no consensus." Peer review mentioned 0 times. The "Defining Science" section links to a page for the demarcation problem, so let's go look at that.
Demarcation Problem - Wikipedia
"The debate continues after more than two millennia of dialogue among philosophers of science and scientists in various fields."
And the article basically continues to that effect, IMO: Demarcation is difficult, unclear, and there is no consensus. Peer review mentioned 0 times.
Maybe it's just Wikipedia that has this misconception. Let's check some other sources.
The Philosophy of Science - UC Berkeley, Understanding Science 101
"Despite this diversity of opinion, philosophers of science can largely agree on one thing: there is no single, simple way to define science!"
Re: Demarcation problem:
"Modern philosophers of science largely agree that there is no single, simple criterion that can be used to demarcate the boundaries of science."
Starting to sound familiar. Lots of opinions from Aristotle to Cartwright, none of whom highlight peer review or acceptance by the institutions as criteria. The page does talk about empiricism, parsimony, falsification, etc. though, consistent with other sources.
Glossary - "science" - UC Berkeley, Understanding Science 101
This one is simple:
Our knowledge of the natural world and the process through which that knowledge is built. The process of science relies on the testing of ideas with evidence gathered from the natural world. Science as a whole cannot be precisely defined but can be broadly described by a set of key characteristics. To learn more, visit A science checklist.
Let's look at the checklist.
Science is embedded in the scientific community - UC Berkeley, Understanding Science 101
The page heading sounds pretty prescriptive, and that's about the closest I can find that claims "if it's not peer reviewed, it's not science." The body (IMO rightfully) describes the importance of community involvement in science, but doesn't say anything like "it's not science unless it involves the community."
Take this excerpt about Gregor Mendel:
However, even in such cases [as Gregor Mendel's], research must ultimately involve the scientific community if that work is to have any impact on the progress of science.
So yes, sharing his findings with the world was why it was able to have an impact, but I don't think it's reasonable to interpret that he wasn't doing science while he was working in isolation, or that it only became science retroactively after it was a) shared, and b) accepted.
Let's take a look at another textbook and see what it says:
1.6: Science and Non-Science - Introduction to History and Philosophy of Science
This chapter suggests that you can take two approaches to demarcation:
- What makes a theory scientific or non-scientific?
- What makes a "change in a scientific mosaic" scientific?
For theories - They're clear that there are no clear universal demarcation criteria, but offer these suggestions:
- Suggestion 1: An empirical theory is scientific if it is based on experience.
- Suggestion 2: An empirical theory is considered scientific if it explains all the known facts of its domain.
- Suggestion 3: An empirical theory is scientific if it explains, by and large, the known facts of its domain.
For changes - This pertains specifically to whether a change to "a scientific mosaic" is scientific or not, which necessarily pertains to a scientific community. But I'd argue that this analysis seems pretty clearly downstream of a priori participation in a scientific community, not attempting to define science as such.
Didn't read the whole textbook, so I might still be missing something, but the focus in the chapter is still definitely on the properties of the inquiry, not on the scientific institutions surrounding it.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Also looked at the entries for Scientific Method and Pseudo-science, which seem to be consistent with the other sources
TL;DR/Conclusion
So I'm still getting a really strong signal that:
- Science/non-science doesn't have a clear demarcation line, and that problem is called the Demarcation Problem. It has a special name because it's still a big deal.
- Ideas about what is science vs. non-science focus mostly on the properties of the inquiry: Is it a testable, falsifiable hypothesis that can be investigated with empirical observations?
- Scientific communities are still super important, and you can make statements about how scientific activity should interact with communities, but community involvement is not usually a factor in demarcation
- Peer review is useful and stuff, but has little interaction with the science/non-science demarcation question... I don't think it came up in any of the sources I looked at
So... Do I still seem misguided? Are Wikipedia and UC Berkeley and this textbook called "Introduction to History and Philosophy of Science" and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy all also misguided? Or am I just interpreting them wrong?
Like I started this investigation feeling 100% ready to learn that my concept of "what Science is" was misguided... But idk, I did a bunch of reading based on your suggestion, and I gotta say I feel pretty guided right now.
If you wanna throw something else to read my way though, I'll happily have a look at it.
I did follow your link to UC Berkeley (the first one I clicked), and wouldn’t you know it, as I expected, they claim the following:
Huh, look at that. Apparently involving “the scientific community” is part of science.
Again, this is from your link, which you didn’t read, I assume because your patron saint, Dunning-Kruger, frowns on reading.
That's not like a big gotcha, lol... I actually said "Let's go look at that checklist," and had a link to it (in a quote). Those checklist items correspond directly to section headings, and I quoted and responded to 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.
Look, here’s my point more concisely: can you name one scientist, just one, whose work isn’t subject to peer review? I can’t think of any. Given that science is ostensibly just the activity that scientists engage in, and all of them do peer review, that’s probably important, right?
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 other, similar activities. The fact that my efforts encounter a Demarcation Problem means the definition is more convoluted than simply “empirical investigation” or “fact finding”. If science could be captured with such broad strokes, there wouldn’t be a demarcation problem!
Elon Musk seems to “think” (and I use this word loosely) that science is when people do experiments or try to figure out the truth, apparently without reproducibility or peer review. 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 seems to be an indispensable feature of science. Do you have your own definition or suggestions?
P.S. just for future discussions, please don’t use Wikipedia for philosophy or mathematics. It’s a good resource of dates and names but that’s about it. For philosophy you can use textbooks or the Stanford Encyclopedia.
Everyone is always a fan of going over to a dictionary and making only one definition of a word "the true one" because it falls in line with their particular argument of the moment.
We can use any sound or collection of letters to describe any phenomenon you please, and I’m not against using “science” to mean “empirical inquiry” or whatever. Just keep in mind you’ll be referring to something different than philosophers of science who use that word. That’s why we have multiple words for similar phenomena, and if you ignore the definitions then you can’t make yourself understood.