• originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    No it literally cannot be so defined. The last part of the scientific method is “report conclusions.” That means public scrutiny free of bias. Internal groups are not public.

    This is akin to saying that a corporation doesn’t need to use the courts because it has internal judges. They might have trials, but by definition they are not doing justice.

    • kernelle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          He’s clearly taking the “but it’s better for human kind” stand, which I support with all I can. But academics can be guilty of gatekeeping and being pretentious, which I’ve seen by many lmao

          • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Gatekeeping on following the scientific method is pretty good gatekeeping if you ask me. Again, what you are arguing is anathema to centuries of scientific endeavors. You’re applying your own interpretation to something that has literally hundreds of years of meaning already, in a way that is just not right. It’s not gatekeeping any more than “a court of law” gatekeeps the concept of justice.