I don't buy the argument that "public" science is the only real science. You can define it that way, but I don't see any reason to.

"Public" science is just a special case of "restricted" science, such that the set of people the knowledge is restricted to is equal to the set of all humans.

I think this might get philosophical quickly, but to really understand where you're at, you need to access all knowledge. Everybody is standing on the shoulder of giants. It's a collective effort that happens through socialization and long-standing institutions like universities.

An essential part of doing science is sharing results and waiting for others to challenge, expand, or falsify them. If you skip this step, you're not truly contributing to knowledge, although you may still create new knowledge in other ways... but not all new knowledge is necessarily scientific, it can be private, esoteric, commercial knowledge.

Take the example of Ida, a 47-million-year-old lemur fossil known as Darwinius masillae. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinius it was "discovered" and hailed as a transitional species bridging primates and mammals. Really a huge contribution to "science".

But here's the catch - Ida was actually found in 1983 and held by a private collector for 25 years, who didn't realize its significance. So we had no idea of this "discovery". It wasn't science, it was a good on a market.

OpenAI is the same. We might enjoy to toy with the technology. But I don't find it contributed to science, yet

I love to get philosophical, so I'm gonna throw this thought experiment here:

Let's say that there was a highly advanced civilization that existed way before the current civilized society. They performed scientific experiments and gained a lot of insight, but a catastrophical event erased them from the face of Earth together with all their knowledge.

Did that civilization engage in science?

If you think that they did, indeed, engage in science, then what is the difference between them and any other closed community that performs scientific experiments?

Or, if you think that they didn't, in fact, engage in science, then does that mean that science is only science if you and I, today, can gain access to the knowledge derived from the experiments? Therefore, science is defined by its utility to us?

> catastrophical event erased them from the face of Earth together with all their knowledge.

This thought experiment seems to introduce a huge variable which eliminates what I think might be a key factor in what many readers believe to be the practice of science.

> what is the difference between them and any other closed community that performs scientific experiments?

That difference here, and the key factor, would be intent. The catastrophic event eliminates any meaning behind what they accomplished or practiced in regards to why they practiced science in the first place.

Practicing it behind closed doors may appear less like science for science's sake and more like, say, an economic pursuit that coincidentally involves the scientific method.

That could be why the conversation appears so split at the moment. It's hard to claim science is about intent or a long-term purpose that, were it removed, it would bar a scientific activity from actually being Science proper. That's a very subjective thing.

> The catastrophic event eliminates any meaning behind what they accomplished or practiced in regards to why they practiced science in the first place.

But if they didn't suffer a catastrophic event, we would call their activities "science"? So, because they did suffer a catastrophic event, what they did is not science (or is not relevant, since you avoided answering the question directly)?

And if our current society was destroyed tomorrow in a catastrophic event along with all our science, and a new society arisen from the ashes that performed scientific experiments, would that mean that what we did wasn't science? Or that what the new society is doing isn't science?

I know I'm streching things here, but words (should?) have meanings in all possible scenarios, and thought experiments are used to decide meanings in such edge cases.

> Practicing it behind closed doors may appear less like science for science's sake and more like, say, an economic pursuit that coincidentally involves the scientific method.

Does "not doing science for science's sake" include only monetary motivation? Would it also mean that someone who primarily wants to achieve status and fame as a scientist also isn't doing real science? Or are they exempt from the rule, since they would most likely release their knowledge into the public (which brings us back to the "science is only science if the current society benefits from it")?

I believe the “advanced civilization VS closed-doors science” problem you propose is inherently faulty. The final step of the scientific method is “share your results”, and they did that. It cannot be accessed anymore, but they attempted to share it and it benefited their people at the time. However, closed-door science benefits no one.

Take, for instance, the Greco-Roman mix for concrete. They produced that scientifically, repeating experiments with their volcanic ash-filled cements to make the best they could, and shared those results across their territory. While that knowledge was lost for centuries, it was still science.

However, a cement company producing a better product and not sharing the production is not science. It’s an economic pursuit. Its goal is not to help everyone to produce a better product, but to produce a better product and hide the results. Even if it uses most of the scientific method, if it doesn’t share its result its not science.

And no, monetary stake isn’t the only reason someone may not be doing science properly. A major one we see time and time again is the desire for science-based renown.

For instance, Einstein is renowned for being one of the smartest men alive, who shaped a lot of our modern understanding of the universe. He may ultimately be wrong, but we have yet to prove that and in fact continue to prove he was decades ahead of his time.

Contrary to Einstein though is Edison, while he did do quite a bit of real science, he was less focused on actually advancing our knowledge and more focused on his own image. For instance, he invented the electric chair solely to try and slander Tesla’s AC, and tortured animals in public to try and breed fear.

Additionally, I will throw my hat in the ring and say most of modern academia doesn’t pursue science, as they push for ever-restricting holds on scientific papers in the pursuit of financial gain. While simultaneously depriving the actual researchers any of that gain, money which could surely help raise a lot of institutions into doing more effective research. Instead, they profit off of and restrict the free flow of knowledge to line their pockets, disabling millions of researchers worldwide from accessing it and imposing harsh prices on non-academics who wish to learn.

In the end, when it comes to what is and isn’t science, I will posit a question. If you never heard about it, and can’t reproduce it yourself/watch someone reproduce it, did it really happen? Or has “science” evolved from the pursuit of knowledge to a faith? If we blindly trust the people in power that they are right, and punish those who question their assertions, it can only end in destruction.

What about scientists that don't publish all their data and code? Are they also not contributing to science?

OpenAI, even without saying how the model works, has been hugely influential in science.

Similar to simply seeing animals and insects fly, humans intuited that they too could fly somehow. Seeing what's possible can open someone's mind in an instant. Would humans be capable of flight if other animals didn't fly already?

If science happens behind closed doors but we witness what it makes possible, that influence alone can inspire a lot more effort and discovery with or without the data that lead to the accomplishment.

I think that moment has been profoundly influential due to ChatGPT alone.

Whether or not it's a good thing that it's largely private is very difficult to say. I don't feel great about it, but I also don't think I know enough to have strong opinions yet.