3 ms·

Exactly. They are applying the scientific method, but they aren't contributing to science. it will be science when it's open and people can integrate the new kn

by kome 4y ago

Exactly. They are applying the scientific method, but they aren't contributing to science. it will be science when it's open and people can integrate the new knowledge in a broader set of knowledge. Science is knowledge. The etymology of science is to split stuff and understand how it work. But from late 14c in the more specific sense of "collective human knowledge". "Private" science is not science. It's some esoteric stuff.

rcpt 4y ago
What about scientists that don't publish all their data and code? Are they also not contributing to science? OpenAI, even without saying how the model works, has been hugely influential in science.
- steve_adams_86 4y ago
  Similar to simply seeing animals and insects fly, humans intuited that they too could fly somehow. Seeing what's possible can open someone's mind in an instant. Would humans be capable of flight if other animals didn't fly already? If science happens behind closed doors but we witness what it makes possible, that influence alone can inspire a lot more effort and discovery with or without the data that lead to the accomplishment. I think that moment has been profoundly influential due to ChatGPT alone. Whether or not it's a good thing that it's largely private is very difficult to say. I don't feel great about it, but I also don't think I know enough to have strong opinions yet.
bheadmaster 4y ago
I don't buy the argument that "public" science is the only real science. You can define it that way, but I don't see any reason to. "Public" science is just a special case of "restricted" science, such that the set of people the knowledge is restricted to is equal to the set of all humans.
- kome 4y ago
  I think this might get philosophical quickly, but to really understand where you're at, you need to access all knowledge. Everybody is standing on the shoulder of giants. It's a collective effort that happens through socialization and long-standing institutions like universities. An essential part of doing science is sharing results and waiting for others to challenge, expand, or falsify them. If you skip this step, you're not truly contributing to knowledge, although you may still create new knowledge in other ways... but not all new knowledge is necessarily scientific, it can be private, esoteric, commercial knowledge. Take the example of Ida, a 47-million-year-old lemur fossil known as Darwinius masillae. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinius it was "discovered" and hailed as a transitional species bridging primates and mammals. Really a huge contribution to "science". But here's the catch - Ida was actually found in 1983 and held by a private collector for 25 years, who didn't realize its significance. So we had no idea of this "discovery". It wasn't science, it was a good on a market. OpenAI is the same. We might enjoy to toy with the technology. But I don't find it contributed to science, yet
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    I love to get philosophical, so I'm gonna throw this thought experiment here: Let's say that there was a highly advanced civilization that existed way before the current civilized society. They performed scientific experiments and gained a lot of insight, but a catastrophical event erased them from the face of Earth together with all their knowledge. Did that civilization engage in science? If you think that they did, indeed, engage in science, then what is the difference between them and any other closed community that performs scientific experiments? Or, if you think that they didn't, in fact, engage in science, then does that mean that science is only science if you and I, today, can gain access to the knowledge derived from the experiments? Therefore, science is defined by its utility to us?
    - steve_adams_86 4y ago
      > catastrophical event erased them from the face of Earth together with all their knowledge. This thought experiment seems to introduce a huge variable which eliminates what I think might be a key factor in what many readers believe to be the practice of science. > what is the difference between them and any other closed community that performs scientific experiments? That difference here, and the key factor, would be intent. The catastrophic event eliminates any meaning behind what they accomplished or practiced in regards to why they practiced science in the first place. Practicing it behind closed doors may appear less like science for science's sake and more like, say, an economic pursuit that coincidentally involves the scientific method. That could be why the conversation appears so split at the moment. It's hard to claim science is about intent or a long-term purpose that, were it removed, it would bar a scientific activity from actually being Science proper. That's a very subjective thing.

by kome 4y ago

rcpt 4y ago

What about scientists that don't publish all their data and code? Are they also not contributing to science? OpenAI, even without saying how the model works, has been hugely influential in science.

steve_adams_86 4y ago
Similar to simply seeing animals and insects fly, humans intuited that they too could fly somehow. Seeing what's possible can open someone's mind in an instant. Would humans be capable of flight if other animals didn't fly already? If science happens behind closed doors but we witness what it makes possible, that influence alone can inspire a lot more effort and discovery with or without the data that lead to the accomplishment. I think that moment has been profoundly influential due to ChatGPT alone. Whether or not it's a good thing that it's largely private is very difficult to say. I don't feel great about it, but I also don't think I know enough to have strong opinions yet.

bheadmaster 4y ago

I don't buy the argument that "public" science is the only real science. You can define it that way, but I don't see any reason to. "Public" science is just a special case of "restricted" science, such that the set of people the knowledge is restricted to is equal to the set of all humans.

kome 4y ago
I think this might get philosophical quickly, but to really understand where you're at, you need to access all knowledge. Everybody is standing on the shoulder of giants. It's a collective effort that happens through socialization and long-standing institutions like universities. An essential part of doing science is sharing results and waiting for others to challenge, expand, or falsify them. If you skip this step, you're not truly contributing to knowledge, although you may still create new knowledge in other ways... but not all new knowledge is necessarily scientific, it can be private, esoteric, commercial knowledge. Take the example of Ida, a 47-million-year-old lemur fossil known as Darwinius masillae. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinius it was "discovered" and hailed as a transitional species bridging primates and mammals. Really a huge contribution to "science". But here's the catch - Ida was actually found in 1983 and held by a private collector for 25 years, who didn't realize its significance. So we had no idea of this "discovery". It wasn't science, it was a good on a market. OpenAI is the same. We might enjoy to toy with the technology. But I don't find it contributed to science, yet
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  I love to get philosophical, so I'm gonna throw this thought experiment here: Let's say that there was a highly advanced civilization that existed way before the current civilized society. They performed scientific experiments and gained a lot of insight, but a catastrophical event erased them from the face of Earth together with all their knowledge. Did that civilization engage in science? If you think that they did, indeed, engage in science, then what is the difference between them and any other closed community that performs scientific experiments? Or, if you think that they didn't, in fact, engage in science, then does that mean that science is only science if you and I, today, can gain access to the knowledge derived from the experiments? Therefore, science is defined by its utility to us?
  - steve_adams_86 4y ago
    > catastrophical event erased them from the face of Earth together with all their knowledge. This thought experiment seems to introduce a huge variable which eliminates what I think might be a key factor in what many readers believe to be the practice of science. > what is the difference between them and any other closed community that performs scientific experiments? That difference here, and the key factor, would be intent. The catastrophic event eliminates any meaning behind what they accomplished or practiced in regards to why they practiced science in the first place. Practicing it behind closed doors may appear less like science for science's sake and more like, say, an economic pursuit that coincidentally involves the scientific method. That could be why the conversation appears so split at the moment. It's hard to claim science is about intent or a long-term purpose that, were it removed, it would bar a scientific activity from actually being Science proper. That's a very subjective thing.