• Mojave@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    Wouldn’t this imply that science didn’t exist before academic publication existed? Was zero science conducted before the ~1600s then?

    • Zo0@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Well you’re not entirely incorrect with that assumption. What we call science today is actually the Scientific Method Which is a much more skeptical approach to science than the earlier methods, hence the credibility. I like many others agree that the fees built into the system is quiet absurd and the process is not perfect, but currently that is the only legit way to get others evaluate your research.

      • Mojave@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        I ask with genuine curiosity, as I am not an academic and come from a software development mindset

        Why is paid-for services the only “legit” way to get others to evaluate your research? Why is it not kosher to publicly publish your research, and simply invite peers to evaluate it? This idea is essentially the entire process behind Open Source Software, and is the backbone of most modern tools/programs/apps/software/linux development.

        What does paying a publishing company provide you, as a researcher, that makes it worth it?

        • Zo0@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          I don’t know what to tell you man, sometimes even I wonder if it’s worth it at all. Publishing to a journal is such a difficult task. Before submitting your paper you need the approval of two other well-established individuals. Then you send in your paper to your selected journal and each one has some specific format and policies, which many are arbitrary and inthe end of the day depends on the person reviewing your paper. This can take weeks of back and forth.

          However if you think you did something noteworthy, as far as I know, this is how you get it in front of the eyes of your peers. Even then there’s a chance that your paper gets ignored lol.

          So like many others in this thread, I’m not a fan of this process because even though it’s strict, a lot of bs still passes through

    • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Fair point, I should specify “modern science”. There’s quite a gap of scientific quality between traditional medicine and modern science based medicine for example.

    • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      No, peer reviewing can happen in many ways. But it needs to be public.

      Sending letters also allows for peer reviewing.

    • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Was zero science conducted before the ~1600s then?

      I mean, yes. The framework of studying things that we understand as science did not always exist.

      • Patapon Enjoyer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Every time someone thinks science and studying natural phenomena are the same thing Newton sheds a single tear from his non-poked eye.

    • SmoothOperator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Possibly. I can’t come up with any major results that wasn’t either logic, engineering or tradition. But it’s an interesting question. What might count as science before then?

    • Fedizen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      not as a discipline. If you publish an experiment to the extent it can be reproduced, it is science, so its happened before but in a less intentional fashion

    • yeahiknow3@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Before the 20th century most famous physicists referred to themselves as “natural philosophers,” not scientists. The P in PhD is for philosophy. The word “science” refers to a modern social phenomenon, a sort of peer-review methodology that generates shared public knowledge.