Re:Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific m...
by donw on Sunday January 30, 2022 @07:10PM
(#30142748)
> Has that maybe been true since the beginning of 'natural philosophy'?
Unlikely. In its infancy, science -- aka "Natural Philosophy" as it was called at the time -- had to establish its credibility. It did so by delivering results.
Re:Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific m...
by robbintt on Sunday January 30, 2022 @07:37PM
(#30142939)
I think most of the science back then was really bad, we just don't talk about it, which is exactly the parent post's point.
Re:Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific m...
by chr1 on Sunday January 30, 2022 @07:28PM
(#30142877)
Alchemy was part of natural philosophy as well though.
Re:Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific m...
by yesenadam on Sunday January 30, 2022 @07:39PM
(#30142956)
Maybe only one person in ten delivered results - then you'd have both results and 90% crud.
Re:Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific m...
by amcoastal on Sunday January 30, 2022 @08:35PM
(#30143416)
And in the same way, a lot of science done and published in the last 25 years has shown real technological improvement in the world around us.
Re:Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific m...
by bencollier49 on Monday January 31, 2022 @05:14AM
(#30146464)
Is that not mostly engineering? Refinement of existing hard science?
Has that maybe been true since the beginning of 'natural philosophy'? Perhaps things seem (much) worse now because we have survivorship bias, the same way classical music seems higher quality than pop, because the 90% crud[0] has been long forgotten.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law