• 0 Posts
  • 23 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 27th, 2023

help-circle





  • Reporting your conclusions doesn’t require being public. It means the larger group of people you release it to, the less bias you’ll have. Meaning in a closed organisation you have added biases of companies and marginally less people to prove you wrong, decreasing the overal quality of the conducted science. But still science, which by definition isn’t black and white.



  • kernelle@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyz✨️ Finish him. ✨️
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    I agree though, we can argue open science is much better and more reliable. We can argue privatly conducting a study and doing all the steps that would be conducted by the academic community within one organisation leads to more biased and less reliable results. But it’s still science by its very definition, I’d even argue denying that is a bit disrespectful to all scientists doing so.


  • An organisation with fully independent teams tackling the same problems can absolutely be defined as peer review. Not in the traditional sense, but reviewing, confirming and replicating nonetheless. Following the scientific method is what makes something scientific, not the act of publishing.

    You can argue of the merits of those papers, an organisation can never make public statements about private research. But saying that what their doing is not science, then you’re just needlessly gatekeeping.


  • kernelle@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyz✨️ Finish him. ✨️
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    I think the word you’re looking for is merit, publication which are cited and peer reviewed hold much more merit than those who don’t.

    Science is a rigorous, systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world. 1

    Nothing in this quote requires external publication. Following the scientific method, publishing, peer reviewing and reproduction can all happen internally in organisation using independent teams. Those private publications hold but a fraction of the merit of publications in recognised journals, but are science nonetheless.


  • kernelle@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyz✨️ Finish him. ✨️
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Seems like the only difference is that if it’s public or not ie published. I think it becomes a matter of opinion then, because independent teams within the same organisation can absolutely peer review eachother, use completely different methodology to prove the same hypothesis and publish papers internally so it can be reproduced internally.

    Science should be made public, but just because it’s not doesn’t mean it’s not science. When the organisation starts making public claims they should have to back that up along the official route, but they could just as well keep their findings a secret, use that secret to improve their working formula and make bank while doing that. Not calling their internal peer reviewed studies science just seems pretentious.


  • I feel like I’m missing something here so I’ll be the devil’s advocate, why can’t unpublished papers be reproducible? Multiple teams could independently be verifying hypotheses and results under the same organisation, adhere to the same standard but never publish, that would still be science no? Not doing humanity any favours, but science nonetheless.