testfactor @ testfactor @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

391

Joined

2 yr. ago

Absolutely agreed with the sentiment. Collaboration is integral to most scientific endeavors. Especially in the modern era. I think we're in the same page on that point.

But, like, if the person had asserted something like, "grilled cheese is only grilled cheese when you eat it with tomato soup," and then Elon responded with, "that's a dumb take, since you can totally have a good grilled cheese without tomato soup," I don't think it's "totally owning him" to list off a ton of reasons why you believe any grilled cheese without tomato soup is an invalid grilled cheese.

Like, we can all agree that grilled cheese is best with tomato soup. That doesn't change the fact that arbitrarily changing the definition of grilled cheese to be "only when paired with tomato soup," is actually just kinda dumb.

Fair enough. I'll engage, lol.

Would you say that Sir Isaac Newton was a scientist? His research was almost entirely solo and was of limited release until much later.

Stephen Hawking has no published reproducible experiments as far as I'm aware. Is he not a scientist?

Is someone conducting research into a scientific field a scientist, or are they required to publish something before they can claim that title?

Honestly, I find arguments over how words are defined kind of exhausting, so maybe we should just cut to the heart of the matter. None of the definitions of science I can find in any dictionary include the word collaboration. Do you think that that's a failure of the dictionary? And even if you do, do you think people who are operating under the belief that the dictionary definition is correct are wrong for doing so?

I reread my post and I'm not sure what you took as aggressive? That I used the word delusional? I didn't intend that to be harsh, but sorry if it came across that way.

But, in my experience, arguments over how words are defined are usually unproductive because language is inherently arbitrary, so I'm fine calling it here. I doubt we'd make any progress.

I hope life is treating you well and you have a pleasant evening.

Do you also assert that my other two examples aren't science?

If so, why?

If not, then I feel like my point still stands and don't feel strongly enough to argue semantics over this particular one.

Ultimately this is a fight over the definition of words, and I think 99.9% of people (and the dictionary) would define all my examples as science. If you want to split the hair of saying, "that wasn't science, it was just scientific research," have at it, but I'll just call you a pedant, lol.

If you aren't saying that "science isn't science without collaboration," can you give an example of something that is science without collaboration? I only ask because you state that's not what you're saying, but follow it up with what, to my attempt at reading comprehension, is you just restating the thing you said you aren't saying.

And I would argue science done in secret can have enormous impacts beyond "simply profits." The Manhattan Project for example. I think it would be absurd to say what was going on there was anything but science, but there was no collaboration with the greater scientific community or intent to share their findings.

And look, of course you can be a researcher without being a scientist. Historians are researchers but not scientists obviously. But when what you are researching is physics and natural sciences, you are a scientist. That's what the word literally means. When your definition requires you to eliminate Sir Isaac Newton, maybe it's your definition that's wrong.

You say you see no problem with calling an apple a fruit when broadly speaking. Neither do I. But that doesn't mean that I wouldn't be absolutely delusional to insist that an apple wasn't actually an apple.

Another great example.

So, first and foremost it is important to recognize we are having a definition argument. The crux of our disagreement is over the definition of "science," specifically as it relates to the act of doing it.

Now, obviously anyone can claim that any word means anything they want. I can claim that the definition of "doing science" is making grilled cheese sandwiches. That doesn't make it so.

So, as with all arguments over the definition of words, I find appealing to the dictionary a good place to start. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science Which, having read through all the possible definitions, does not seem to carry any connotation of mandatory collaboration.

Now, the dictionary is obviously not the be all and end all. Words have colloquial meanings that are sometimes not captured, or nuance can be lost in transcribing the straight meaning of the word. But I think that the onus is on you to justify why you believe that meaning is lost.

And note, what I'm not arguing is that science isn't collaborative. Of course it is. There are huge benefits to collaboration, and it is very much the norm. But you have stated an absolute. "Science isn't science without collaboration." And that is the crux of our disagreement.

And as to why I wouldn't just call it "research." First, I see no reason to. By both my colloquial definition and the one in the dictionary (by my estimation), it is in fact science. But, more importantly, if we take your definition, you are relegating the likes of great scientists like Newton, Cavendish, Mendel, and Killing to the title of mere "researchers." And I find the idea of calling any of those greats anything short of a scientist absurdly reductive.

What makes science a group activity by necessity?

Why is one person employing the scientific method to better understand the world around them "not doing science"?

Heck, I can think of a half dozen other examples of things that aren't published and/or can't be reproduced but would be considered science.

If I had an unpublished workbook of Albert Einstein, would I say the work in it "isn't science"?

If I publish a book outlining a hypothesis about the origins of the Big Bang, is it not science because it doesn't have any reproducible experiments?

Is any research that deadends in a uninteresting way that isn't worthy of publication not science?

I like dunking on Elon as much as the next guy, but like, "only things that are published get the title of 'science'" seems like a pretty indefensible take to me...

Fair. I'll admit, I did start skimming at some point and you're right, it's pretty explicit in section 5 and I just didn't see it.

It's a wall of text though for sure. I probably would have skimmed it in the same way if I was looking to travel there, lol. Which is on me for sure, but I also wouldn't expect the penalty for skimming the list and missing something to be ten grand out of my pocket, lol.

I can't find the pork ban on the link you provided. The closest I saw was "Quarantine inspection of animals, plants and their derived products" which isn't a prohibition of anything in particular, and the link to the relevant authority literally goes to a dead page.

I googled what not to bring into Taiwan, and this was the first link that came up: https://support.carousell.com/hc/en-us/articles/115008674167-List-of-Prohibited-Content-Taiwan

I can see pursuing that and not putting together that your lunch violates it. It has a big red text about animal product imports, but specifies that it's about animals under quarantine, which makes it seem like more of a livestock restriction. Especially when it starts referencing legal codes instead of giving you any kind of meaningful explanation.

Combine that with the fact that the dude was Indonesian and routed through a Hong Kong airport, and I think it's not wildly unreasonable that he would have missed the memo, even if he'd done his due diligence.

And I stand by that, even if he'd not done his due diligence, the punishment is excessive. This feels like more of a "we confiscate the offending material, slap you with a $500 fine, and send you on your way."

It's not like he was smuggling in livestock. He had the equivalent of a carnitas burrito from Chipotle in his bag.

The guy was from Indonesia and routed to Taiwan via Hong Kong. There's a good chance there were no signs or announcements in a language he could understand.

Check what though, that's the issue. I would never think that my carnitas burrito from Chipotle might catch me a 10k fine.

And let's be real, there's no reason to put that "(maybe)" in there. Are you suggesting the dude was like, "Ahahaha, my dastardly plan is in motion! I'm going to snuggle 4oz of pork hidden away in my lunch, in direct violation of import controls. It's so clever because I have absolutely no discernable reason I would want to do this on purpose!!!"

And what are you recommending me check? Google every item on the "ingredients" list on my coke zero to make sure I'm not smuggling red dye number 33 into a country that bans it?

Most civilized countries don't fine people $10k for breaking laws that it would be very reasonable they have no idea exist.

I mean, I don't know that that changes my point at all, but if you'd really like me to rephrase it:

I don't Google every item in my suitcase to make sure the the type of cotton my socks are made of won't get me immediately deported and fined $10,000 that I don't have.

So, I'm from Alabama and my dad worked for the state. While the holiday is terrible, it has a dope as hell placement.

They always put it on the first Monday in June, so it's always the week after Memorial Day.

As such, state offices basically shut down for a week, since everybody takes the Tuesday to Friday after Memorial Day off, since 4 days of leave gets you a 10 day stretch of no work.

Not saying it's good, but it'd be hella unpopular to repeal, and not cause people care about Jefferson Davis, lol.

I mean, that headline implies intentionality, no? I doubt the guy knew that his lunch would get him slapped with a $10k fine.

I know I don't Google every single item in my bag to make sure that something like the type of cotton my socks are made of doesn't get me thrown in jail.

It seems counterproductive to pay for tickets to go see a comedian just to protest heckle.

Like, you just gave that man money to yell at him. I'm sure he's drying his tears with the dollar bills.

Oh dang, did the new remaster go back and redo all the Vivian dialogue to match the original Japanese!?

I was already stoked for this game, but that's got me double stoked!!!

See, I feel like your whole post could be summarized as, "some people's mental illness makes them unable to work and earn money, so they're too poor to afford treatment, and therefore the morally correct thing is to just let those people kill themselves."

And while I don't think that's exactly what you meant, it's how it comes across. Almost all of your points are some variation of who's gonna pay for their treatment and take care of their physical needs.

And I would strongly argue that the answer is instead to have more robust social safety nets to cover those needs. Allowing people to kill themselves as the solution is hella dystopian.

But, I'm not saying that this is 100% always right. This is a hard issue with no clear answers, and I am absolutely not minimizing the pain of mental illness. My point is that mental illness is much less understood than physical illness, and I wouldn't trust any diagnosis that said the condition could never be resolved. In the same way that I would be loathe to euthanize someone with a physical illness that has an acceptable chance of being transient, I'm loath to do the same with most if not all cases of mental illness. Especially if the person is otherwise very young/healthy.