4 ms·

> What is more scientific than testing the hypothesis yourself? Professionals doing it? Who know how to do it properly better than laymen?

wolverine876 3y ago
With respect, that is the complete opposite of science! The only difference, the only barrier, between you and a 'scientist' is that someone else took that step to do it themselves. Tomorrow you could be a scientist - next time you have an idea! You don't have to publish in Nature to be a scientist. Really, I mean that in the best way. I am a scientist every day. It's powerful, it's joyful, it's curious and exploratory (very important parts of your brain to work out, per research by professional scientists), it's extraordinarily practical: Science, by me, has reduced my energy consumption and bill by around (very roughly) 70%.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dekhn 3y ago
  You're likely describing citizen science and engineering, which cannot really be considered for publication in Nature. The work here represents many thousands if not millions of hours of accumulated scientific skill in building experiments that are likely to produce useful conclusions, rather than falsely rejecting the null hypothesis. I've worked in citizen science and I have even done some exciting stuff in my garage, which attracted the world's leading researcher in my area of interest. The first thing I'd need to do with my tech is to bring it to his lab and reproduce it on science-grade equipment. then we would need to come up with good hypotheses we could test, and spend an enormous amount of time designing protocols, and debugging lab details. All of that comes before even thinking about writing a manuscript that would be accepted in nature, which is one of the most prestigious journals with enormous readership. I don't want to discourage young folks who want to get into science, but the reality is that the vast majority of real science is dull work, such as requesting money, writing presentations to convince people you're right, and debugging experiments. I'm not defending this as the way it should be, but observing the reality of the situation. I have actually met a very small number of people who managed to turn citizen science into Big Science and get published, but they are a much smaller group than the folks who do bad citizen science in their garages and get attention on sites like Hackaday.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > You're likely describing citizen science and engineering That's what you are describing. If you read my comments, I am not talking about that (though I don't object to it), and my main point is that science is not defined by the type of work that gets published in journals, or by whatever qualifies as 'citizen science'.
    - dekhn 3y ago
      I read all your comments carefully, in detail, before responding. Can you give us some examples of what you mean? I'm struggling to see how somebody on their own could come up with a non-trivial scientific result that was meaningful in any way.
      - Chaosvex 3y ago
        I believe the point he's trying to make is that he still considers it be science, regardless of the label you've chosen to place on it.
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        > a non-trivial scientific result that was meaningful in any way I assume you mean non-trivial and meaningful to society and to the progress of human knowledge. My whole point is that those properties are not necessary to doing 'science'. What I do is non-trivial and meaningful to me and sometimes to people I know, to a few people on the Internet, and/or to my community or co-workers. Though sometimes the data is trivial even to me, and still it's a joy, the joy of exploration and curiosity. Also, there are infinite questions beneath the threshold of professional science costs that can be investigated (and some of those are just hyper-local questions). Science doesn't have to be big and globally meaningful. That stuff is very important, but that's not all there is - not nearly. Just do science - just do it and stop debating if and the semantics - do some experimentation, with some hacked objectivity, controls, etc. It's a powerful tool: what you discover when you actually try it, whatever it is, will change your perspective, will raise new questions, and will lift up your mind and spirits, guaranteed. I know so much more about the world than many people, simply by doing a bit of exploration through experimentation.

wolverine876 3y ago

With respect, that is the complete opposite of science! The only difference, the only barrier, between you and a 'scientist' is that someone else took that step to do it themselves. Tomorrow you could be a scientist - next time you have an idea! You don't have to publish in Nature to be a scientist. Really, I mean that in the best way. I am a scientist every day. It's powerful, it's joyful, it's curious and exploratory (very important parts of your brain to work out, per research by professional scientists), it's extraordinarily practical: Science, by me, has reduced my energy consumption and bill by around (very roughly) 70%.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dekhn 3y ago
You're likely describing citizen science and engineering, which cannot really be considered for publication in Nature. The work here represents many thousands if not millions of hours of accumulated scientific skill in building experiments that are likely to produce useful conclusions, rather than falsely rejecting the null hypothesis. I've worked in citizen science and I have even done some exciting stuff in my garage, which attracted the world's leading researcher in my area of interest. The first thing I'd need to do with my tech is to bring it to his lab and reproduce it on science-grade equipment. then we would need to come up with good hypotheses we could test, and spend an enormous amount of time designing protocols, and debugging lab details. All of that comes before even thinking about writing a manuscript that would be accepted in nature, which is one of the most prestigious journals with enormous readership. I don't want to discourage young folks who want to get into science, but the reality is that the vast majority of real science is dull work, such as requesting money, writing presentations to convince people you're right, and debugging experiments. I'm not defending this as the way it should be, but observing the reality of the situation. I have actually met a very small number of people who managed to turn citizen science into Big Science and get published, but they are a much smaller group than the folks who do bad citizen science in their garages and get attention on sites like Hackaday.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > You're likely describing citizen science and engineering That's what you are describing. If you read my comments, I am not talking about that (though I don't object to it), and my main point is that science is not defined by the type of work that gets published in journals, or by whatever qualifies as 'citizen science'.
  - dekhn 3y ago
    I read all your comments carefully, in detail, before responding. Can you give us some examples of what you mean? I'm struggling to see how somebody on their own could come up with a non-trivial scientific result that was meaningful in any way.
    - Chaosvex 3y ago
      I believe the point he's trying to make is that he still considers it be science, regardless of the label you've chosen to place on it.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      > a non-trivial scientific result that was meaningful in any way I assume you mean non-trivial and meaningful to society and to the progress of human knowledge. My whole point is that those properties are not necessary to doing 'science'. What I do is non-trivial and meaningful to me and sometimes to people I know, to a few people on the Internet, and/or to my community or co-workers. Though sometimes the data is trivial even to me, and still it's a joy, the joy of exploration and curiosity. Also, there are infinite questions beneath the threshold of professional science costs that can be investigated (and some of those are just hyper-local questions). Science doesn't have to be big and globally meaningful. That stuff is very important, but that's not all there is - not nearly. Just do science - just do it and stop debating if and the semantics - do some experimentation, with some hacked objectivity, controls, etc. It's a powerful tool: what you discover when you actually try it, whatever it is, will change your perspective, will raise new questions, and will lift up your mind and spirits, guaranteed. I know so much more about the world than many people, simply by doing a bit of exploration through experimentation.