3 ms·

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

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.
    - bheadmaster 4y ago
      > The catastrophic event eliminates any meaning behind what they accomplished or practiced in regards to why they practiced science in the first place. But if they didn't suffer a catastrophic event, we would call their activities "science"? So, because they did suffer a catastrophic event, what they did is not science (or is not relevant, since you avoided answering the question directly)? And if our current society was destroyed tomorrow in a catastrophic event along with all our science, and a new society arisen from the ashes that performed scientific experiments, would that mean that what we did wasn't science? Or that what the new society is doing isn't science? I know I'm streching things here, but words (should?) have meanings in all possible scenarios, and thought experiments are used to decide meanings in such edge cases. > 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. Does "not doing science for science's sake" include only monetary motivation? Would it also mean that someone who primarily wants to achieve status and fame as a scientist also isn't doing real science? Or are they exempt from the rule, since they would most likely release their knowledge into the public (which brings us back to the "science is only science if the current society benefits from it")?

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.
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    > The catastrophic event eliminates any meaning behind what they accomplished or practiced in regards to why they practiced science in the first place. But if they didn't suffer a catastrophic event, we would call their activities "science"? So, because they did suffer a catastrophic event, what they did is not science (or is not relevant, since you avoided answering the question directly)? And if our current society was destroyed tomorrow in a catastrophic event along with all our science, and a new society arisen from the ashes that performed scientific experiments, would that mean that what we did wasn't science? Or that what the new society is doing isn't science? I know I'm streching things here, but words (should?) have meanings in all possible scenarios, and thought experiments are used to decide meanings in such edge cases. > 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. Does "not doing science for science's sake" include only monetary motivation? Would it also mean that someone who primarily wants to achieve status and fame as a scientist also isn't doing real science? Or are they exempt from the rule, since they would most likely release their knowledge into the public (which brings us back to the "science is only science if the current society benefits from it")?