• AVincentInSpace
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Semantic arguments (which, as you say, do not, ultimately, matter) aside, the point that the Twitter user in the post we’re commenting on was trying to make is that science is best when it’s shared, and that when the results of an experiment are not published, mankind as a whole is the lesser for not knowing them. The poster chose to do this in a somewhat drastic way by redefining “science” to exclude experiments whose results were not shared. As many commenters on this post (including yourself) pointed out, this new definition is unnecessarily strict, and that redefining it as such was not necessary in making the point nor ultimately warranted.

    I do, however, agree with the point.

    • testfactor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months 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.