3 ms·
None of the papers are offering falsifiable premises and testing them. This is not doing science, this is merely assembling metadata. I find shameful that serio
by namaria 3y ago
None of the papers are offering falsifiable premises and testing them. This is not doing science, this is merely assembling metadata. I find shameful that serious academics and institutions are indulging in this kind of number games.
"Let's publish a bunch of measurements we took" might be rigorous and look like what advancing science would look like if you squint. But this is just gaming the publishing game.
- jiggawatts 3y agoA decent chunk of biology was simply collecting bugs and pinning them on a board. A lot of science is just taking down measurements and recording the result. It's not always a giant leap, some grand insight, or a world-changing theorem.
- namaria 3y agoNo, a large chunk of biology was figuring out species evolve and were not created as they are right now. Or that every living thing is made of cells that share the same basic chemistry and structure, not special kinds of tissue. The busywork in between might have looked like science and occupied a lot of time and space. Relativity and quantum mechanics generated a lot of falsifiable claims that were eventually tested. Yet we have been building larger and larger colliders to "collect and publish data" and the best outcome so far has been a job program for engineers (useful and good) and the Web (useful and good). But we shouldn't confuse collecting data and engineering with advancing science.