General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsScience versus Academia
Science is an idea, and academic institutions are actual organizations that have specific internal power structures, managers with idiosyncratic personalities, official written policies, unwritten policies, restrictions imposed by those who provide money for the institutions to operate, etc.
Does the mere fact that somebody has a Ph.D. in science from a reputable, accredited academic institution imply that the dissertation itself or subsequent peer-reviewed papers written by the holder of the Ph.D. are actually works of science?
Note: I considered posting this in the Science forum, but this message falls in the category meta-science, not science. I suspect that meta-science belongs in the category Philosophy rather than in the category Science. Philosophy is a general category for discussion, as it includes such things as ethics and logic. Thus, Philosophy seems to be a subcategory of General Discussion.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)d_r
(6,907 posts)but in the post-modern world empricism is dead of course. But the scientific method - of following from theory to generate testable hypothesis, then conducting observations to test the hypothesis and revising and resubmitting the question based on the observations is the key.
Igel
(35,191 posts)It's the dominant part. Stressing it and nothing else can be misleading.
The first important part of science is usually based entirely on observation. You notice things, categorize things, and organize the data. Then you form your first hypothesis based on abductive reasoning.
I've actually seen "gee, isn't this interesting?" articles dissed as non-science. Reporting on a set of observations that establishes a fact at odds with theory is wonderful science, even if how the theory needs to be revised isn't obvious. Yet all modern science rests on hundreds, if not thousands, of such articles--pointing out facts that could be organized and "grown" into a theory.
Too many of my high school students actually believe that this kind of research doesn't count as science because it doesn't fit the straitjacket.
d_r
(6,907 posts)I absolutely see that as part of the scientific process
jody
(26,624 posts)accepted by the relevant scientific community as credible after surviving the ruthless scrutiny of all challengers.
Boojatta
(12,231 posts)Your criterion seems to make the meaning of the concept "science" depend on sociological events, but the sociological events depend upon specific people.
If it takes a hundred years after a paper is first distributed to reviewers before the paper can achieve peer-reviewed status, and if the reviewers belong to a diverse spectrum of cultures, philosophies, ideologies, political views, etc, then your criterion might be okay.
However, what if a paper simply accords with a short-lived fad that lasts for a couple of years, or appeals to the biases of some narrow dogma or ideology (such as Behaviorism, which had institutional influence for more than a few years)?
jody
(26,624 posts)meets subjective standards for the journal and field.
If published, experts in the field will continue to examine the conclusions frequently publishing letters or articles rebutting a paper or hopefully replicating the research and reaching similar conclusions.
Criticism never ends as evidenced recently by scientist who published results questioning Einstein's speed of light limit.
That's different from religion which poses questions that cannot be answered by science but reach a conclusion nevertheless and refuse to reconsider whether that conclusion is valid.
jody
(26,624 posts)scientific journals" http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php
One article in a top peer-reviewed journal is worth several books.
Also there is a vast difference between the 2 or 3 top journals in a field and rags claiming to be peer-reviewed at the bottom that might publish anything. The latter exist only so the very weakest scholars can claim enough publications for tenure and promotion at colleges that are little more than diploma mills.
Creationists get degrees so when they say god created everything, they can say "Look! I have a degree"
Christopher Busby, a anti-nuclear activist, says he does science, but no one in the field agrees with him. I also believe I heard he got into trouble hawking a bogus radiation cure to people around fukishima.
You can get a PHD and still be a charlatan.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)Boojatta
(12,231 posts)Do those CVs matter?
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)Professional scientists have done dumb, erroneous and even fraudulant work.
Scientists sometimes reach inaccurate conclusions.
But if a panel of accredited scientists agree that a work is of sufficient rigor to be published as science it is likely that it is science.
jody
(26,624 posts)of the editor.
Within a given field, scientist know which are the top journals and it is an honor to have an article published in one.
On the other there are a few top scientist who routinely have their papers accepted by the very top journals.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)There is no canon of science.
Scientific results become accepted by the scientific community over time through review, publication and dissemination, if they are not refuted or brought into question by later results.
Peer-reviewed publication is a step in the process.
napoleon_in_rags
(3,991 posts)For instance, when I was in school, I would cite Wikipedia and old profs would just laugh. Truth be told, Wikipedia has pretty damn good content. However, it used to be professors who were called on for contributions to encyclopedias, which was a source of income and published works (they say its publish or perish for profs) so there was a major push in academia against it, though their complaints were not necessary based on wikipedia's content, they were economic and political. That's an example of academia diverging from "just the facts".
Science is dangerous turf. The value of a prof is what she's put years of work into. For a history prof, what happened isn't suddenly going to change, but for a science prof, a new theory can turn everything on its head, and turn years of study into once valueable knowledge into alchemical esoterica.
Igel
(35,191 posts)Some articles aren't trustworthy because they're controversial and consequently a war zone.
Some articles are subject to random fluctuation. The editors try to keep it all clean--if the editors are themselves clean--but can't always manage.
Therein's the problem. Since you can't tell and since it's not peer reviewed, it's not trustworthy. It's fully derivative, and there's no point citing Wiki when Wiki tells you exactly what else to cite.
It's a glossed metalink. Why cite the metalink when you can read the *full* versions, with all the explanations? It's like citing Cliff Notes in a scholarly work on Austen instead of actually citing Austen or the original works written about Austin.
BTW, history profs have the same problem at times as science profs. It's just since the standard of proof is less ironclad, you can usually argue against the evidence until you're emeritus.
napoleon_in_rags
(3,991 posts)And if the citations are good and consistent with what the article is saying, its a good article. Its like that in any journal you read. People quote derivative works like journals all the time, you don't have to go back to the original. But the journals cost money, they put food on the table of professors, Wikipedia does not. So citing journals is acceptable.
As soon as the conversation moves away from "which statements are true based on their assertions" and toward "which statements are true based on who said them", you are out of science and into politics, and there is a lot of politics in the academic scene.