• Mojave@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Wouldn’t this imply that science didn’t exist before academic publication existed? Was zero science conducted before the ~1600s then?

    • SmoothOperator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      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?

    • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

    • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Was zero science conducted before the ~1600s then?

      I mean, yes. The framework of studying things that we understand as science did not always exist.

      • Patapon Enjoyer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Every time someone thinks science and studying natural phenomena are the same thing Newton sheds a single tear from his non-poked eye.

    • Fedizen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      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