Now-a-days I'd say science is a profession tailored to the economy. — Moliere

Would it not be the other way round? The economy being tailored to science.

As a starting place maybe it'd be nice if public libraries had access to academic journals. — Moliere

You can get a lot of information from academic journals on the web, but not the ones that contain the information that is moving the economy.
But the question there is, how many people would actually be interested in reading them? Not too many i believe.

Would it not be the other way round? The economy being tailored to science. — Sir2u

I'm interested! One of the reasons I thought to start the discussion was the hash out various meanings of "science".

Care to say more?

You can get a lot of information from academic journals on the web, but not the ones that contain the information that is moving the economy.
But the question there is, how many people would actually be interested in reading them? Not too many i believe. — Sir2u

Yup. And due to budgetary reasons public libraries don't invest in such things because they are prohibitively expensive and the interest is low. Usually public libraries attempt to cater to the people around them (which they should). So in terms of the social infrastructure that might be required I don't think I have an explicit opinion that'd actually be practical. I'm not sure how to get there.

But it seems fair. Why block knowledge? Isn't that a good thing for the public in a democracy?

One of the reasons I thought to start the discussion was the hash out various meanings of "science". — Moliere

How would you define it?

Care to say more? — Moliere

Maybe.

And due to budgetary reasons public libraries don't invest in such things because they are prohibitively expensive and the interest is low. — Moliere

Yep. Where I live there is not really such a thing as public libraries, I think there might be 3 or 4 in the country. Most of the universities have libraries but except for the one attached to my place of work I have no idea if they are even used.
After reading an article a couple of years ago I made a few inquiries over the internet to public libraries I found that most of them would make an effort to get the books they don't have if asked in advance.

But it seems fair. Why block knowledge? Isn't that a good thing for the public in a democracy? — Moliere

Fair plays a very minor role in society, haven't you noticed? Research is expensive, if your company has spent millions of dollars developing some sort of technology you do not want others getting it and preventing you from recovering the money. People in your company would lose their jobs maybe.
If it was a true democracy them everyone would respect the rights of others and information could be freely spread around. If it was a true democracy them everyone would know all about the people the are voting for and fewer idiots would be elected.

How would you define it? — Sir2u

I think that science is a part of knowledge. I don't have a general definition in the sense for all possible examples.

But usually I think of it as any culture's knowledge which enables. Science and technology, for me, are closely linked. I'm more skeptical of notions of science which posit metaphysical theses. I tend to think of science as what human beings do together. But the specifics of that, verses other things we do together, aren't easy for me to pin down.

Somehow human beings come together in groups and are able to generate knowledge that happens to be useful to people outside of that group, but in a particular way too. Something to do with being able to manipulate our environment.

I think of science as the process of acquisition of knowledge. Knowledge being the result of scientific examination and experimentation.
That is why knowledge is so well kept by the industries that succeed in gaining it, it is bloody expensive to maintain the labs and funded universities that do the research.

I think of science as the process of acquisition of knowledge. Knowledge being the result of scientific examination and experimentation. — Sir2u

I agree with this.

That is why knowledge is so well kept by the industries that succeed in gaining it, it is bloody expensive to maintain the labs and funded universities that do the research.

Oh, sure. I'm aware. Knowledge is valuable. Not just in some esoteric sense. It's worth money. Lots of it.

Science is a practice of bookkeeping guess work.

But the only way to make that bookkeeping guess work worthwhile is through honesty, or perhaps another virtue.

So, transcendentally: How is it possible to arrive at scientific truth? The only possible way is through honest bookkeeping.

Is there a question here? There is a lot more to science than honest bookkeeping.

edit: didn't see the previous replies.

Now-a-days I'd say science is a profession tailored to the economy. I want to figure out how to tie it to Marx, duh, and so call it knowledge-production. — Moliere

I would want to say that the reason science is not knowledge-production is because it is tailored to the economy. Modern science is GDP-production, or arms-production, or health-production, and is only incidentally knowledge-production. This has been particularly true since the inception of the modern research university. Speculative knowledge has been more or less entirely eclipsed in our culture.

From an interesting and pertinent article by the Harvard historian of science, Steven Shapin:

So, by the middle of the 20th century, the scientific community — in the United States and many other Western countries — had achieved a goal long wished for by many of its most vocal members: it had been woven into the fabric of ordinary social, economic, and political life. For many academic students of science — historians, sociologists, and, above all, philosophers — that part of science which was not an academic affair remained scarcely visible, but the reality was that most of science was now conducted within government and business, and much of the public approval of science was based on a sense of its external utilities — if indeed power and profit should be seen as goals external to scientific work. Moreover, insofar as academia can still be viewed as the natural home of science, universities, too, began to rebrand themselves as normal sorts of civic institutions. For at least half a century, universities have made it clear that they should not be thought of as Ivory Towers; they were not disengaged from civic concerns but actively engaged in furthering those concerns. They have come to speak less and less about Truth and more and more about Growing the Economy and increasing their graduates’ earning power. The audit culture imposed neoliberal market standards on the evaluation of academic inquiry, offering an additional sign that science properly belonged in the market, driven by market concerns and evaluated by market criteria. The entanglement of science with business and statecraft historically tracked the disentanglement of science from the institutions of religion. That, too, was celebrated by scientific spokespersons as a great victory, but the difference here was that science and religion in past centuries were both in the Truth Business.

When science becomes so extensively bonded with power and profit, its conditions of credibility look more and more like those of the institutions in which it has been enfolded. Its problems are their problems. Business is not in the business of Truth; it is in the business of business. So why should we expect the science embedded within business to have a straightforward entitlement to the notion of Truth? The same question applies to the science embedded in the State’s exercise of power. Knowledge speaks through institutions; it is embedded in the everyday practices of social life; and if the institutions and the everyday practices are in trouble, so too is their knowledge. Given the relationship between the order of knowledge and the order of society, it’s no surprise that the other Big Thing now widely said to be in Crisis is liberal democracy. The Hobbesian Cui bono? question (Who benefits?) is generally thought pertinent to statecraft and commerce, so why shouldn’t there be dispute over scientific deliverances emerging, and thought to emerge, from government, business, and institutions advertising their relationship to them? — Steve Shapin, Is There a Crisis of Truth?

Science is a practice of bookkeeping guess work.

But the only way to make that bookkeeping guess work worthwhile is through honesty, or perhaps another virtue.

So, transcendentally: How is it possible to arrive at scientific truth? The only possible way is through honest bookkeeping. — Moliere

The only way to arrive at truth is to desire truth, and those who desire truth as a means to something else do not desire truth qua truth. Scientists were once lovers of truth, and because of that they were reliable. But now that science has become a means, scientists are no longer reliable. Their science (and its truth) is a means to some further end, and because of this the science has lost its credibility. When the scientist was a man who sought truth we believed him to be speaking truth, but now that the scientist is an employee of institutions, we believe him to be acting in the interests of those institutions.

Covid is a very good example. Fauci appealed to his scientific bona fides to inform us that masks are ineffective against Covid-19. We later learned that he was lying in order to ensure enough personal protective equipment (PPE) for medical professionals. We thought the scientist was speaking the truth, whereas in fact he was acting in the interests of his institution by speaking outright lies.

When the scientist was a man who sought truth we believed him to be speaking truth, but now that the scientist is an employee of institutions, we believe him to be acting in the interests of those institutions. — Leontiskos

Do you think that being employed by an institution is somehow contradictory to being a man who seeks truth?

I suppose that would be at least as problematic for clergy.

Do you think that being employed by an institution is somehow contradictory to being a man who seeks truth? — wonderer1

There is no more ubiquitously conflicting interest than the interest in truth. Consider the Fauci case:

1. Masks are effective against Covid-19.
2. If society knows this, then there may not be enough PPE for medical professionals.
3. Therefore, I must lie and say that masks are ineffective against Covid-19.

This is a perfectly standard expedient lie, and there may be nothing that humans are more adept at than the expedient lie. When science becomes fettered to an end that is separate from truth, conflicts of interest such as these inevitably arise. The sort of institutions that science has now become wed to all hold such heterogenous ends.

As a starting place maybe it'd be nice if public libraries had access to academic journals. Taxes go to pay for that research after all. It should be accessible. — Moliere

Agree 100%, that research results paid for by tax dollars should in general be more freely available. However, I'm afraid the fraction of the electorate that cares much about the issue is rather small, and I don't forsee much change anytime soon.

This is a perfectly standard expedient lie, and there may be nothing that humans are more adept at than the expedient lie. — Leontiskos

Perfectly standard? I'd think it is an unusual situation, for a scientist to have to make such judgement calls with millions of lives at stake.

When science becomes fettered to an end that is separate from truth, conflicts of interests such as these arise. The sort of institutions that science has now become wed to all involve such heterogenous ends. — Leontiskos

It's not very conducive to having an accurate view of things, to reify science as you are. You also seem to be committing a genetic fallacy. Do you want to rephrase that in a less fallacious way?

You also seem to be committing a genetic fallacy. — wonderer1

How so? Try making a real argument, bud.

No worries. I started this in the lounge once upon a time for the reason that I don't really understand science, and also know others here are scientific sorts: but I didn't want the burden of argument to inhibit the thoughts.

As the title suggests: brainstorming science (together)

If you could say what more there is to science than honest bookkeeping then I'd be happy: I agree with you, but I also wonder "how much more is there to it?"

The only way to arrive at truth is to desire truth, — Leontiskos

Yes, I agree here.

and those who desire truth as a means to something else do not desire truth qua truth. Scientists were once lovers of truth, and because of that they were reliable. But now that science has become a means, scientists are no longer reliable. Their science (and its truth) is a means to some further end, and because of this the science has lost its credibility. When the scientist was a man who sought truth we believed him to be speaking truth, but now that the scientist is an employee of institutions, we believe him to be acting in the interests of those institutions.

I believe scientists are very much still in that pursuit.

Covid is a very good example. Fauci appealed to his scientific bona fides to inform us that masks are ineffective against Covid-19. We later learned that he was lying in order to ensure enough personal protective equipment (PPE) for medical professionals. We thought the scientist was speaking the truth, whereas in fact he was acting in the interests of his institution by speaking outright lies.

Surely what Fauci said and did is not the same as what scientists do?

And, with respect to brainstorming science, Covid is only understood cuz of science. We only know about it because of the various pursuits into virology and biology and so forth. We could detect it because of the advances in ELISA and qPCR techniques.

Which is to say: Some scientists say outright lies to use the mantle of science for their cause, but in the long run scientists will criticize them and point out the truth because that's what we do: be annoying nerds about technical truths. lol

If you could say what more there is to science than honest bookkeeping then I'd be happy — Moliere

Does bookkeeping involve wonder and investigation? I'm not sure science is bookkeeping at all. It seems more basically to be an investigation of the unknown in nature.

I believe scientists are very much still in that pursuit. — Moliere

Some are, but Shapin's article is very good at illustrating why they are becoming so rare.

Surely what Fauci said and did is not the same as what scientists do? — Moliere

It is what scientists increasingly do. There are many causes, but they combine to result in something like what Ioannidis argued in his famous paper, “Why Most Published Research Findings are False.”

Which is to say: Some scientists say outright lies to use the mantle of science for their cause, but in the long run scientists will criticize them and point out the truth because that's what we do: be annoying nerds about technical truths. lol — Moliere

Shapin's article is in large part addressing the idea that science will win in the long run. I should reread it, even though it is a bit long. He gets at the curious truth that speculative sciences are paradoxical insofar as their success leads to their failure.

But from the perspective of someone like John Henry Newman in his Idea of a University, science and the liberal arts have been degrading for a long time now. Today science is associated with power more than truth, and this has been a long time coming.

Does bookkeeping involve wonder and investigation? I'm not sure science is bookkeeping at all. It seems more basically to be an investigation of the unknown in nature. — Leontiskos

In terms of practices the bookkeeping is important: the reference to the same kinds of units so that methods and findings can be shared, for instance, can be characterized as a formalized method of collective bookkeeping so that they can communicate what they observe to one another.

And the honest part is because it's a pretty valued trait in the sciences, I find.
 

There can be motivations to do science like a sense of wonder, but there are also motivations like "I want to make more money", or "I want scientific glory" or "I want to disprove that sunavabitch!" :D

But even moreso I don't think the motivation matters as much as the activity: whether you're there out of a sense of wonder or because it's how you pay your bills the work that is valuable requires communicable findings.

But also in reflecting on this -- I'm interested in reducing scientific practice to something easily communicable as well as true of the those practices for pedagogic and philosophical reasons. The philosophical reason is that I think there's a temptation to treat science as a kind of magic, which I don't believe it to be: More like an intricate conversation that's been recorded over time and modified in light of good bookkeeping (so that the conversation can happen over time, for the most part) of some clever guesses with checks -- mathematically it's "Guess and check" within a community that spans over time.

Of course the nature of science has changed since Newton, but I'd say that truth is very much a part of its enterprise still even though it's industrially aligned -- science, like any human activity, changes with the changes in economic forms, but that doesn't mean you can make a science without truth. (it does not surprise me that most published research is false -- that's one of the explicit reasons for publishing research is so others can read and check it and publish a reply. This is why you can't just grab a study and claim to know something)

Agree 100%, that research results paid for by tax dollars should in general be more freely available. However, I'm afraid the fraction of the electorate that cares much about the issue is rather small, and I don't forsee much change anytime soon. — wonderer1

That's how everything that's ever been important starts ;)

As a starting place maybe it'd be nice if public libraries had access to academic journals. — Moliere

Ban academic paywalls. That's a cause I can get behind. Especially when it's taxpayer-funded research. But even the so-called privately funded universities take plenty of taxpayer dough. Ban the paywalls.

ps -- I came to the thread late and I see that @wonderer1 and others have made this point.

Ban academic paywalls. That's a cause I can get behind. Especially when it's taxpayer-funded research. But even the so-called privately funded universities take plenty of taxpayer dough. Ban the paywalls.

ps -- I came to the thread late and I see that wonderer1 and others have made this point. — fishfry

No worries, it's nice to hear that others' have similar thoughts on something that seems pretty esoteric with respect to the usual issues. And I agree that paywalls are a big burden, especially for international researchers. Whereas I can, if I feel the gumption, usually find some route to a paper through going to libraries and asking people and whatnot, a researcher on the other side of the world only has access to what is available, the internet is a great tool for distributing that sort of thing, but the owners of these properties -- and it's really really complicated, I don't understand the revenue streams of research very well -- put that stopgap in there; my guess is it's mostly there so that they can charge institutions the amount that they require to continue running, but that in turn means that individuals have to align with an institution, and that create a huge barrier to international scholarship.

...my guess is it's mostly there so that they can charge institutions the amount that they require to continue running... — Moliere

Excerpt from https://blogs.uwe.ac.uk/psychological-sciences/standards-and-profits-in-academic-publishing-all-publishers-and-open-access-arrangements-are-not-the-same/:

But increasing numbers suggest that even traditional academic publishers can be bad for science (see here and here). Academic publishing used to incur appreciable costs in terms of typesetting articles, producing physical copies of journals and distributing them around the world. More recently, desktop publishing software and online articles have reduced these costs considerably. Today, the academic publishing industry reports profit margins of around 40%. A New Scientist leader article argues it is the most profitable business in the world.

While the business model of academic publishing is extremely profitable for the publishers, it is extractive in terms of the academic labour involved (see here and here). Academics write articles for free, associate editors find reviewers for free, peer reviewers critique the articles for free, and even many editors in chief guide the whole process for free. All the while, some publishers are making huge profits.

oof. Alas we can all be sweet summer children at one point...

So, it's even worse than that! A group riding an economic wave because why not, when the people involved see the why not and would like to, like, not....

In terms of practices the bookkeeping is important: the reference to the same kinds of units so that methods and findings can be shared, for instance, can be characterized as a formalized method of collective bookkeeping so that they can communicate what they observe to one another. — Moliere

In order to collaborate scientists need to communicate with each other, both across generations and within generations. Sure, but it does not follow that science is communication.

There can be motivations to do science like a sense of wonder, but there are also motivations like "I want to make more money", or "I want scientific glory" or "I want to disprove that sunavabitch!" :D

But even moreso I don't think the motivation matters as much as the activity: whether you're there out of a sense of wonder or because it's how you pay your bills the work that is valuable requires communicable findings. — Moliere

But what is the activity? That's the question. It's not communication. Not everyone who communicates is doing science, nor is everyone who shares a finding doing science.

I think there's a temptation to treat science as a kind of magic — Moliere

True and then some.

More like an intricate conversation that's been recorded over time and modified in light of good bookkeeping (so that the conversation can happen over time, for the most part) of some clever guesses with checks -- mathematically it's "Guess and check" within a community that spans over time. — Moliere

The Catholics and the Muslims have been communicating for many centuries. Is that science? A conversation recorded over time?

1a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science — Science | Merriam-Webster

A science is an ordered body of knowledge. "Science" is the ordered body of knowledge which modern man tends to find most important (i.e. natural science).

But what is the activity? — Leontiskos

Guess-check-share-guess-check-share-guess-check-share...

I think that the particular era of science will specify what makes a good guess, what would count as a check, and how one goes about sharing. In Newton's day philosophy and science were closer than most generally hold now.

One of the problems with method is that it doesn't exactly exist in some big sense. The methods of interest are already established in various ways at this time so it entirely depends upon what science you're working within, and even which lab you'd find yourself in. But these methods are in no way general in the way philosophy likes, or even as the public tends to think: this going some way to push against the magical thinking that science might tempt.

Also it asks the reader to get out of their head and look at what the scientists are doing as a method for defining science :D -- A systematic body of knowledge isn't exactly a science either. Plumbing is a systematic body of knowledge that relies upon empirical guess-work, but it's not a science. And all the many systems of knowledge which philosophers produce aren't exactly a science either.

I think that the particular era of science will specify what makes a good guess — Moliere

Here is a good article to begin debunking the guess/check paradigm: Cartwright on theory and experiment in science.

-share- — Moliere

Why share? Is it necessary?

Guess-check-share-guess-check-share-guess-check-share... — Moliere

This is a bit like describing tennis as, "Swing-hit-run-swing-hit-run..." That's not what tennis is. It's a physical-reductionistic cataloguing of certain events that occur within the game of tennis.

Plumbing is a systematic body of knowledge that relies upon empirical guess-work, but it's not a science. — Moliere

I think it is, and more than that, I think those who say it's not will not be able to give a coherent account of what a science is. That's what we've begun running into, here.

And all the many systems of knowledge which philosophers produce aren't exactly a science either. — Moliere

Why not?

I think it is, and more than that, I think those who says it's not will not be able to give a coherent account of what a science is. That's what we've begun running into, here. — Leontiskos

Is it incoherent to say "Science is what scientists do, and what scientists do changes over time"?

Why not? — Leontiskos

By the above criteria. You don't see Gassendi or Lucretius referenced in the activity of sciences today (just to give some naturalist philosophers that would seem to get along with the ideas, but aren't needed for science). Why should you?

That is, rather than an organized body of knowledge based on empiricism, I'd say science is what scientists do.

Here is a good article to begin debunking the guess/check paradigm: Cartwright on theory and experiment in science. — Leontiskos

So the claim that looks like might conflict with what I'm saying is: "that science is essentially just theory plus experiment;"

But what science is is what scientists do, and what scientists do changes over time. That is I'm taking up a historical-empirical lens to the question -- the philosophical theory is "Science is what scientists do", which, of course, is defined only ostensively and so doesn't have some criteria for inclusion.

A perhaps annoying but purposeful use of vagueness: What shall we include in saying "science"? What are the examples that need to be considered? It seems we ought to include real examples of science, and so an emphasis on the activity of scientists rather than looking at theories of knowledge or qualifications of philosophers.

That is, I'd defend the notion of a standpoint: I think that people who do the thing are in a better position to know about it. That doesn't mean they're in a better position to philosophize about it, of course, which is why a lot of philosophers of science are both scientists and philosophers: that phenomenology of science is considered an important grounding in judging the history of science from a philosophical perspective. (so, yes, I'd also defend the notion that we come to know science from a historical perspective, which is contextual and not amenable to universal conditions)

I don't think my notion of science would deny the part where Edward says: "In addition to theory and experimentation, there are models, narratives, diagrams, illustrations, concrete applications, and so on. None of these is reducible to theory or experiment, and neither are they any less essential to the practice and content of science. And when we take account of them, both science and the world it describes are seen to be far more complicated than the common conception of science and its results implies." in the opening, either. So while, sure, I have been brief and so it's understandable to question, I'm wondering if we're in conflict at all?

This is a bit like describing tennis as, "Swing-hit-run-swing-hit-run..." That's not what tennis is. It's a physical-reductionistic cataloguing of certain events that occur within the game of tennis. — Leontiskos

What is tennis? :D

In the attempt to provide a non-magical sketch of science I am, also, attempting a pedagogical sketch at science -- it doesn't need to be an essence or universal notion, I don't think. Coherency and specificity is enough, I believe. (also, I don't think there is an essence to science, of course)

Why share? Is it necessary? — Leontiskos

I think so. It keeps you sane. When you go about questioning reality on a regular basis it's a good idea to listen to others :D -- many a scientist has had some pretty kooky beliefs outside of their work.

Is it incoherent to say "Science is what scientists do, and what scientists do changes over time"? — Moliere

Yes, it is. It is called equivocation, and it is also a non-definition. Someone who does not know what scientists do will simply not be able to identify scientists.

By the above criteria. You don't see Gassendi or Lucretius referenced in the activity of sciences today (just to give some naturalist philosophers that would seem to get along with the ideas, but aren't needed for science). Why should you? — Moliere

Why shouldn't I? You aren't offering any answers at all.

That is, rather than an organized body of knowledge based on empiricism, I'd say science is what scientists do. — Moliere

That's a nothing-burger. :wink:

That is, I'd defend the notion of a standpoint: I think that people who do the thing are in a better position to know about it. — Moliere

People who do what thing? You've made "science" a set of seven incomprehensible letters.

What do scientists do? What is a scientist?

many a scientist has had some pretty kooky beliefs outside of their work. — Moliere

Well as long as they are a scientist, then according to your definition whatever they are doing must be science.

Again, this is what Science is:

1a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science — Science | Merriam-Webster

Yes, it is. It is called equivocation, and it is also a non-definition. Someone who does not know what scientists do will simply not be able to identify scientists. — Leontiskos

If you had a definition for "scientist" do you believe that the person who does not know what a scientist does will be able to identify scientists?

Let's say "Scientists are the people who produce knowledge about the physical world", to use Merriam-Webster. So "Science is what scientists do, and what scientists do is produce knowledge about the physical world, and that production process changes over time" fits with what I've said.

If you had a definition for "scientist" do you believe that the person who does not know what a scientist does will be able to identify scientists? — Moliere

That's just what a definition is.

Let's say "Scientists are the people who produce knowledge about the physical world", to use Merriam-Webster. So "Science is what scientists do, and what scientists do is produce knowledge about the physical world, and that production process changes over time" fits with what I've said. — Moliere

"X is what Xers do" is a tautological and uninformative statement.

The "changes over time" idea is similarly uninformative and unhelpful. If the use of a term changes over time then we have equivocation, and in that case in order to talk about the same thing one needs two different terms, and in order to understand what older texts mean by the older definition, one requires linguistic historical knowledge.