There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

thanks_shakey_snake

@[email protected]

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

thanks_shakey_snake ,

Typically they don’t operate without infantry support, so they’d likely be in radio contact with forward observers. But yes, in some circumstances it could be a reconnaissance UAV.

thanks_shakey_snake ,

Much more measured take than “if it’s not published, then it definitely is not science.”

thanks_shakey_snake ,

The word “legit” there is doing alot of work.

thanks_shakey_snake ,

“Nuance” and “discussion” did not appear to be part of either participant’s intent.

thanks_shakey_snake ,

If we’re talking about gatekeeping what is and isn’t capital-S Science, I’d really like to know where these “hard definitions” are coming from.

Wikipedia’s page for the Scientific Method seems to get it wrong when it describes it as “a general set of principles,” the core of which is forming falsifiable hypotheses and testing them… and the details vary from field to field and across different time periods. Sounds like you can do that at home.

The page for Science appears to also contradict the “hard definition” when it describes science as spanning most of human history, long before the modern institutions of formal publication and peer review, and doesn’t describe them as mandatory at all. Definitely doable at home, as far as I can tell.

That’s not to say that scientific collaboration isn’t valuable, btw… I just can’t find any basis to support the idea that if it’s not published in a formal academic journal, then it’s definitely not science, and that science CAN’T happen without the involvement of the institutions.

So like… Where does this “hard definition” that people keep talking about come from, and why doesn’t Wikipedia seem to know about it?

thanks_shakey_snake , (edited )

Science is a particular method of peer review…?

This thread prompted me to revisit what I think “science” means, and I’ve been through a number of different Wikipedia pages, dictionary definitions, etc. but that inquiry just reinforced that this “science == participation in the institutions/communities of science” idea just doesn’t seem to hold up.

Where does this idea come from? I keep seeing this “science is this very particular thing, it’s not just forming falsifiable hypotheses and then testing them,” but then when I look it up, the sources I find say exactly the opposite.

EDIT: To respond, backwards, to the edit below, I guess…? That’s not really a gotcha, and not really what I was saying, lol. Please read the whole thread.

thanks_shakey_snake ,

Your desire to collapse all fact-finding into the concept of “science”

Well that’s a reach. I had to buy a new laptop charger and find facts about what voltage, etc. I needed… I certainly don’t consider that fact-finding exercise to be science, and I don’t think I said anything to suggest that.

But okay, I don’t have a textbook handy, but let’s see what we can find out about the Philosophy of Science:

Philosophy of Science - Wikipedia

Seems to pretty clearly indicate “lots of interesting and useful ideas, no consensus.” Peer review mentioned 0 times. The “Defining Science” section links to a page for the demarcation problem, so let’s go look at that.

Demarcation Problem - Wikipedia

“The debate continues after more than two millennia of dialogue among philosophers of science and scientists in various fields.”

And the article basically continues to that effect, IMO: Demarcation is difficult, unclear, and there is no consensus. Peer review mentioned 0 times.

Maybe it’s just Wikipedia that has this misconception. Let’s check some other sources.

The Philosophy of Science - UC Berkeley, Understanding Science 101

“Despite this diversity of opinion, philosophers of science can largely agree on one thing: there is no single, simple way to define science!”

Re: Demarcation problem:

“Modern philosophers of science largely agree that there is no single, simple criterion that can be used to demarcate the boundaries of science.”

Starting to sound familiar. Lots of opinions from Aristotle to Cartwright, none of whom highlight peer review or acceptance by the institutions as criteria. The page does talk about empiricism, parsimony, falsification, etc. though, consistent with other sources.

Glossary - “science” - UC Berkeley, Understanding Science 101

This one is simple:

Our knowledge of the natural world and the process through which that knowledge is built. The process of science relies on the testing of ideas with evidence gathered from the natural world. Science as a whole cannot be precisely defined but can be broadly described by a set of key characteristics. To learn more, visit .

Let’s look at the checklist.

Science is embedded in the scientific community - UC Berkeley, Understanding Science 101

The page heading sounds pretty prescriptive, and that’s about the closest I can find that claims “if it’s not peer reviewed, it’s not science.” The body (IMO rightfully) describes the importance of community involvement in science, but doesn’t say anything like “it’s not science unless it involves the community.”

Take this excerpt about Gregor Mendel:

However, even in such cases [as Gregor Mendel’s], research must ultimately involve the scientific community if that work is to have any impact on the progress of science.

So yes, sharing his findings with the world was why it was able to have an impact, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to interpret that he wasn’t doing science while he was working in isolation, or that it only became science retroactively after it was a) shared, and b) accepted.

Let’s take a look at another textbook and see what it says:

1.6: Science and Non-Science - Introduction to History and Philosophy of Science

This chapter suggests that you can take two approaches to demarcation:

  • What makes a theory scientific or non-scientific?
  • What makes a “change in a scientific mosaic” scientific?

For theories - They’re clear that there are no clear universal demarcation criteria, but offer these suggestions:

  • Suggestion 1: An empirical theory is scientific if it is based on experience.
  • Suggestion 2: An empirical theory is considered scientific if it explains all the known facts of its domain.
  • Suggestion 3: An empirical theory is scientific if it explains, by and large, the known facts of its domain.

For changes - This pertains specifically to whether a change to “a scientific mosaic” is scientific or not, which necessarily pertains to a scientific community. But I’d argue that this analysis seems pretty clearly downstream of a priori participation in a scientific community, not attempting to define science as such.

Didn’t read the whole textbook, so I might still be missing something, but the focus in the chapter is still definitely on the properties of the inquiry, not on the scientific institutions surrounding it.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Also looked at the entries for Scientific Method and Pseudo-science, which seem to be consistent with the other sources

TL;DR/Conclusion

So I’m still getting a really strong signal that:

  • Science/non-science doesn’t have a clear demarcation line, and that problem is called the Demarcation Problem. It has a special name because it’s still a big deal.
  • Ideas about what is science vs. non-science focus mostly on the properties of the inquiry: Is it a testable, falsifiable hypothesis that can be investigated with empirical observations?
  • Scientific communities are still super important, and you can make statements about how scientific activity should interact with communities, but community involvement is not usually a factor in demarcation
  • Peer review is useful and stuff, but has little interaction with the science/non-science demarcation question… I don’t think it came up in any of the sources I looked at

So… Do I still seem misguided? Are Wikipedia and UC Berkeley and this textbook called “Introduction to History and Philosophy of Science” and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy all also misguided? Or am I just interpreting them wrong?

Like I started this investigation feeling 100% ready to learn that my concept of “what Science is” was misguided… But idk, I did a bunch of reading based on your suggestion, and I gotta say I feel pretty guided right now.

If you wanna throw something else to read my way though, I’ll happily have a look at it.

thanks_shakey_snake , (edited )

That’s not like a big gotcha, lol… I actually said “Let’s go look at that checklist,” and had a link to it (in a quote). Those checklist items correspond directly to section headings, and I quoted and responded to the even-more-strongly-worded section heading directly.

In fact, I included it as the best evidence I found for your point: That if I read any textbook on the philosopy of science, it will spell out how “science” is “a particular method of peer review.” Well… I found some evidence that kind of points that way, and a whole boatload that suggests that that isn’t really thought of as part of the Demarcation Problem. I wasn’t going in trying to “be right,” that’s just what I found.

Like I put quite a bit of work in good faith to try to understand where you’re coming from, but I don’t feel like you’re trying to meet me half way.

thanks_shakey_snake ,

Oh thanks for editing in an example-- that wasn’t there when I wrote my reply, but what did you think of the other Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy links I provided?

That article that you linked (Scientific Pluralism) is an interesting read, but it’s more about the importance of diversity in the scientific community… it doesn’t really address the Demarcation Problem, and it doesn’t discuss peer review or anything as far as I could tell.

Mentioning in passing that “science is social” (which is IMO uncontroversially true in a non-demarcation way, btw) is a few shades away from “any textbook will tell you that science is a particular process of peer review.” I think the Science and Pseudo-Science entry that I linked is more germane.

thanks_shakey_snake ,

Lol I think you’re onto something. Maybe better off sticking to sea cucumber posts.

It did make me learn some things, though. The person who I was responding to told me to “See any textbook on the Philosophy of Science,” so I did, and I learned about the Demarcation Problem, Logical Positivism, and some new Karl Popper ideas. So, it has not led to a collaborative discussion, but it was pretty interesting, and I’m much more confident now about what’s reasonable to say about what “counts as Science.” Time well spent, IMO.

(In case you were wondering: Any activity performed while wearing safety goggles or glasses is technically science.)

thanks_shakey_snake ,

Warcraft: Orcs and Humans, fam.

thanks_shakey_snake ,

3.5 is still reasonably useful for the same reasons you described, imo… Just less so.

thanks_shakey_snake ,

Sponsored: TRY MARBLED ROCK ROAST

thanks_shakey_snake ,

I too had an Animorphs flashback.

thanks_shakey_snake ,

That art style is called “Alegria” or “Corporate Memphis” and it always makes me feel kind of nauseated, even without the cannibalism.

thanks_shakey_snake ,

LOL Right? The contempt is just barely contained by the Wikipedia voice and tone.

thanks_shakey_snake ,

Lol deception aside, good on anon opponent for pivoting from mildly toxic to totally wholesome on a dime.

thanks_shakey_snake ,

Yes I think we are in agreement.

thanks_shakey_snake ,

Non-paywall version: archive.ph/bsSon

thanks_shakey_snake ,

Yo Throck, you down to hit the frictionless ramp this afternoon?

thanks_shakey_snake ,

Umm no cause skate shoes are lava-proof for 1 second at a time???

thanks_shakey_snake ,

Which costs extra, of course

thanks_shakey_snake , 

<span style="color:#323232;"> Behavior |  Reasonableneses |
</span>

|----------|-----------------------------------| | Substituting applesauce | 8/10 | | One-starring the recipe because it didn’t work out | 0/10 |

thanks_shakey_snake ,

I see your point. If you view the cells as separate contexts, then it would be necessary to specify that “the substitution” is the thing that didn’t work out.

thanks_shakey_snake ,

I was just winging it and it worked out!

thanks_shakey_snake ,

Those questions/claims are really interesting as like… A way to teach children how to think about scale and approximation and stuff.

Adults holding those beliefs both a) sincerely and b) defensively though… Less cute.

Aurora from my flight last night

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/dcee1e17-af36-46cb-9dec-98a597ccaf1f.jpeghttps://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/ca09280a-0d52-4817-9c97-25ab49504189.jpeghttps://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/5d2e5bc6-c35a-4ca9-9b7d-9fc17c8b76fb.jpeghttps://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/4be789f5-d8eb-47cd-a51e-f9f97b3c317a.jpeghttps://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/39d5a670-29ee-4fef-945b-ccfed7381e0c.jpeghttps://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/1cdb5fd7-6bb7-4d0c-96aa-71312ce5f65c.jpeg

thanks_shakey_snake ,

How did you take those photos? Was it like long exposure or something? Or did they come out like that just point-and-shoot?

thanks_shakey_snake ,

That’s cool-- I remember watching for a long time before my eyes adjusted to the darkness, and then it was impossible to miss. It was actually really awesome, though different from the photos.

I’d say the last one actually looks pretty close to what it looked like to the naked eye.

thanks_shakey_snake ,

Hack with benefits!

thanks_shakey_snake ,

Lol you just saw “stranded preposition” and bailed, hey?

thanks_shakey_snake ,

unexpectedinterrobang

thanks_shakey_snake ,

Yeah lol I’m familiar with “kill child” in a process management context, but I’ve never seen the word “sacrifice” come up. Is that a thing?

thanks_shakey_snake ,

Kernel Panic at the /dev/disk/0

thanks_shakey_snake ,

Idk, if you don’t get too flummoxed by “stranded preposition” and “relative locus,” the rest is pretty plain IMO.

thanks_shakey_snake ,

Nice. Imagine the lady in the post’s face when she learns that “oom badness” is how they decide which child to sacrifice.

What’s that from?

thanks_shakey_snake ,

Let us know how it goes! 👋

thanks_shakey_snake ,

Not sure if pleased or screaming 🤔

thanks_shakey_snake ,

That’s… not where I thought this post was going.

How do you store your grounded coffee? (slrpnk.net)

Hiya, just quickly wondering how people store their coffee? Mine is in a tin box I got second hand, cos I thought it looked nice. Any rules regarding storing grounded coffee? I don’t store much at the time, it’s just if I grind a little too much and what not. I’m assuming the general thumb rule for this is to store it in a...

thanks_shakey_snake ,

No no not that kind of grounded! They meant designating the coffee as unable to fly due to required maintenance, inclement weather, etc.

thanks_shakey_snake ,

Is it really less secure than a password? How so?

thanks_shakey_snake ,

This meme is about net neutrality.

thanks_shakey_snake ,

Wow-- My thoughts exactly. I assumed after that, nobody would go anywhere near them with their disaster-waiting-to-happen affairs. But then I remember how I used to assume that nobody would be careless enough to make their password “12345678” and it makes more sense.

Add in the fact that the horny debuff gives people like a -30 to IQ, and it really starts to come into focus.

thanks_shakey_snake ,

Glass house level: Psych PhD

thanks_shakey_snake ,

Sponsored product recommendations cannot be loaded without an internet connection. Please configure a wireless/ethernet adapter and connect to the internet to continue.

Doesn't the need for a permit fundamentally contradict the US's ideals of free speech?

I went to some palestine protests a while back, and was talking to my brother about the organizing, when revealed something I found pretty shocking, we (the protesters) had acquired a permit to hold the protest. Apparently this is standard policy across the US....

thanks_shakey_snake ,

Yeah, that’s accurate-- The permit has nothing to do with speech, it has to do with use of public space. Where I’m from, the police will come and block off streets and manage traffic to keep demonstrators safe. Without the permit, everyone would still be allowed to say more or less whatever they wanted, but the logistics of the gathering could create a hazard, and that’s just a gray area that everyone is just better off avoiding.

thanks_shakey_snake ,

Except war. War never changes.

thanks_shakey_snake ,

Why does being a team sport or not affect whether you can root for them?

thanks_shakey_snake ,

Exactly this. If a company can show me a phone that can do something new that my current phone can’t-- not just a marginally better camera or invasive AI assistant-- then I would say to them “I still wish you would have spent your resources on dog longevity, but yeah maybe I’d be into that.”

An iPhone isn’t a flip phone but better… It’s a whole different thing.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •