5 ms·

Some scientists just want to build cool things and not have to worry about publishing. Some of my colleagues over the years have moved to Apple and startups for

Some scientists just want to build cool things and not have to worry about publishing. Some of my colleagues over the years have moved to Apple and startups for this reason.

amelius 11y ago
Perhaps so. Other scientists want to push the border of human knowledge.
- eivarv 11y ago
  There is a difference between pushing the borders of human knowledge and disseminating said knowledge, though.
  - amelius 11y ago
    I guess that depends on your interpretation of "human knowledge" then :)
    - eivarv 11y ago
      By being a human, you would be able to expand human knowledge without letting other humans know about it. So yeah, it's a matter of definition;P
  - walterstucco 11y ago
    Exactly. The first, Without the second, is not called science.
    - eivarv 11y ago
      If the scientists in question are applying the scientific method as a means to "build cool things", can they not be said to be doing science?
      - cwyers 11y ago
        One of the key tenets of the scientific method is reproducibility. People can't reproduce your results if they don't know what your results are.
        eivarv 11y ago
        Reproducibility does not necessarily mean that other people should be able to reproduce the results in question (which would depend upon them knowing the relevant information in the first place) - but that an experiment can be replicated. I would agree that publishing results is better for several reasons (ethics, pragmatism, probably more thorough evaluation, etc.), but the definition doesn't really deal with the public at all. TLDR; Reproducibility != public reproducibility.
        coldtea 11y ago
        It doesn't have to be "arbitrarily many people". Just people other than the original scientist. So colleagues at Apple still qualify. There are tons of secret research behind any company (and governments), and it's still "science". (And conversely, lots of published scientific papers are actually not reproducible, but for most of them nobody bothers -- even if other scientists cite them as accurate).
        snowwrestler 11y ago
        It's just the conclusions that need to be reproducible. In fact, science as a whole works better when researchers devise alternate experiments to test the same conclusion. For example, say I measure gravitational acceleration on Earth by dropping a feather repeatedly. I get a number and I publish it. If other scientists just repeat my exact experiment, they will get a similar number and my result will be confirmed. Yay science! But if scientists decide to check my number by dropping a wide variety of other objects, they will illustrate the flaws in my original experiment and everyone will get a clearer picture of gravity. So it's not about just reproducing an experiment; scientists seek to test and expand upon each others' results.
        snowwrestler 11y ago

Some scientists just want to build cool things and not have to worry about publishing. Some of my colleagues over the years have moved to Apple and startups for this reason.

amelius 11y ago

Perhaps so. Other scientists want to push the border of human knowledge.

eivarv 11y ago
There is a difference between pushing the borders of human knowledge and disseminating said knowledge, though.
- amelius 11y ago
  I guess that depends on your interpretation of "human knowledge" then :)
  - eivarv 11y ago
    By being a human, you would be able to expand human knowledge without letting other humans know about it. So yeah, it's a matter of definition;P
- walterstucco 11y ago
  Exactly. The first, Without the second, is not called science.
  - eivarv 11y ago
    If the scientists in question are applying the scientific method as a means to "build cool things", can they not be said to be doing science?
    - cwyers 11y ago
      One of the key tenets of the scientific method is reproducibility. People can't reproduce your results if they don't know what your results are.
      - eivarv 11y ago
        Reproducibility does not necessarily mean that other people should be able to reproduce the results in question (which would depend upon them knowing the relevant information in the first place) - but that an experiment can be replicated. I would agree that publishing results is better for several reasons (ethics, pragmatism, probably more thorough evaluation, etc.), but the definition doesn't really deal with the public at all. TLDR; Reproducibility != public reproducibility.
      - coldtea 11y ago
        It doesn't have to be "arbitrarily many people". Just people other than the original scientist. So colleagues at Apple still qualify. There are tons of secret research behind any company (and governments), and it's still "science". (And conversely, lots of published scientific papers are actually not reproducible, but for most of them nobody bothers -- even if other scientists cite them as accurate).
        snowwrestler 11y ago
        It's just the conclusions that need to be reproducible. In fact, science as a whole works better when researchers devise alternate experiments to test the same conclusion. For example, say I measure gravitational acceleration on Earth by dropping a feather repeatedly. I get a number and I publish it. If other scientists just repeat my exact experiment, they will get a similar number and my result will be confirmed. Yay science! But if scientists decide to check my number by dropping a wide variety of other objects, they will illustrate the flaws in my original experiment and everyone will get a clearer picture of gravity. So it's not about just reproducing an experiment; scientists seek to test and expand upon each others' results.
      - snowwrestler 11y ago