Does it require independent peer review though? How do you achieve that with without publication? The predatory publication system is a different point.
Possibly. I can’t come up with any major results that wasn’t either logic, engineering or tradition. But it’s an interesting question. What might count as science before then?
Fair point, I should specify “modern science”. There’s quite a gap of scientific quality between traditional medicine and modern science based medicine for example.
not as a discipline. If you publish an experiment to the extent it can be reproduced, it is science, so its happened before but in a less intentional fashion
Does it require independent peer review though? How do you achieve that
withwithout publication? The predatory publication system is a different point.Edit: fix without
Wouldn’t this imply that science didn’t exist before academic publication existed? Was zero science conducted before the ~1600s then?
Possibly. I can’t come up with any major results that wasn’t either logic, engineering or tradition. But it’s an interesting question. What might count as science before then?
Pretty sure it was like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2xlQaimsGg
Fair point, I should specify “modern science”. There’s quite a gap of scientific quality between traditional medicine and modern science based medicine for example.
I mean, yes. The framework of studying things that we understand as science did not always exist.
Every time someone thinks science and studying natural phenomena are the same thing Newton sheds a single tear from his non-poked eye.
not as a discipline. If you publish an experiment to the extent it can be reproduced, it is science, so its happened before but in a less intentional fashion