Nature reports about a debate on X that started between Yann LeCun and Elon Musk. In short, the question is whether you can only call ‘science’ science when you publish your results. The Nature article is paywalled, but you can, as of now, still read the original post by LeCun that initiated the discussion.
If I remember correctly, my methods professor also said it’s only science when you publish it. I wasn’t convinced then (long time ago) and am still not convinced today. For me, science is about the process of producing knowledge, which does not require publication. (a position also addressed in the Nature article) To illustrate my position, imagine you stranded on an island and run your own small experiments to figure out how to survive. The experiments could cover different techniques of growing vegetables and fruit; different techniques of storing food and water; etc. Wouldn’t this be scientific and science?
I think one needs to distinguish what one does with scientifically generated insights. If you face the public with your findings, you have to publish them to allow others to evaluate your research. If you don’t claim anything publicly based on your research, there is no need for publishing. Of course, privately done research is also likely to benefit from public scrutiny and feedback. If you get a second or third opinion of how to grow vegetables and store them, your chances of surviving are likely to increase. However, if you don’t want anything from the public because of your research (promotion, money, fame, whatever), you can keep your science for yourself and still call it science because it is in the process.
Politics, Science, Political Science 