this post was submitted on 29 May 2024
1383 points (95.3% liked)

Science Memes

11161 readers
2992 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If it’s not published it’s not science. The Contrapositive is if it is science, then it is published.

Not if it is published it is science.

[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (2 children)
[–] psud@aussie.zone 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

They are logically different. Harry Potter is published, but it's not science, for example, so it is not true that if it is published it is science

Many argue that a lot of cosmology is not science, despite it being published and peer reviewed as it has no falsifiable predictions

Why do people down vote honest questions? Not everyone gets an education in philosophy

[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

I can live with downvotes. It’s the internet and not everyone knows me. And to be fair, I’ve made some “friends” along the way.

But to your point, in the Venn Diagram of life, I admittedly was basing my question on the smaller subset of actual papers that are scientific in nature, and certainly not fantasy novels. You do raise a good point about published and peer reviewed pseudoscience, like cosmology. I would hope that , as pointed out by Yann LaCun, those publications need to be reviewed and vetted by people too and that’s where their claims hopefully fall apart.

I digress. I see now how my questions holds a lot of assumptions; which by its very nature is unscientific. It was an earnest question, so I thank you for pointing out its flaws.

[–] TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip 1 points 5 months ago

While I believe they answered well, the short being it being published doesn’t mean it is automatically science, there are plenty of shitty publications that care more about number of articles than ensuring good practices, and good peer review.

The point of what he was saying was that you need to publish it for it to be science tho, as science is there to build knowledge and increase our understanding, and not publishing does not allow that and thus is not science, even if the methods were good and the logic was sound.