Well... That's like alot of steps, lol. In UX design, we would call that a violation of the Three Click rule, and obfuscating the expression of user intent.

Like... Do you gain anything from these launchers? I guess Frosty you opt into because you use it to manage your mods. Maybe launching through that is how your mods get bootstrapped. Kay cool.

Epic games, you definitely need and want to use for other reasons-- Shopping for games and managing your library-- but is it really benefitting you to open that app so that you can open the app you actually want to use? Maybe you have a reason that you actually like that better, idk, but I'd rather just open the app that I want.

And then the EA app... What does it offer that makes it worth putting another step between you and your game? Login to the EA account you don't need? DRM? Ads for other games? The premise of most launchers is that the company has some goals that you don't share, and they're willing to add friction to your experience to achieve those.

Some launchers aren't so bad. I dunno what EA's deal is. Speaking of Ubisoft Connect specifically:

• It's an online-only service that forces you into having an account to play... It's not just an extra launcher in front of your game
• Ubisoft Connect is part of their DRM mechanism
• It wants admin privileges on your system
• It leaves processes running in the background when you aren't using it
• And more

Those things aren't necessarily all bad per se, and you'd certainly tolerate them for some apps... But it's a big imposition for the company to insist on, IMO, and part of the reason for the launcher hate.

I didn't downvote btw, I think you're entitled to your opinion and maybe you're fine with the launchers you use... But personally, I just choose not to play Ubisoft games for that reason, even though there are games that I would like to have played.

Ubisoft Connect, no thanks.

Lol I think you're onto something. Maybe better off sticking to sea cucumber posts.

It did make me learn some things, though. The person who I was responding to told me to "See any textbook on the Philosophy of Science," so I did, and I learned about the Demarcation Problem, Logical Positivism, and some new Karl Popper ideas. So, it has not led to a collaborative discussion, but it was pretty interesting, and I'm much more confident now about what's reasonable to say about what "counts as Science." Time well spent, IMO.

(In case you were wondering: Any activity performed while wearing safety goggles or glasses is technically science.)

Oh thanks for editing in an example-- that wasn't there when I wrote my reply, but what did you think of the other Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy links I provided?

That article that you linked (Scientific Pluralism) is an interesting read, but it's more about the importance of diversity in the scientific community... it doesn't really address the Demarcation Problem, and it doesn't discuss peer review or anything as far as I could tell.

Mentioning in passing that "science is social" (which is IMO uncontroversially true in a non-demarcation way, btw) is a few shades away from "any textbook will tell you that science is a particular process of peer review." I think the Science and Pseudo-Science entry that I linked is more germane.

That's not like a big gotcha, lol... I actually said "Let's go look at that checklist," and had a link to it (in a quote). Those checklist items correspond directly to section headings, and I quoted and responded to the even-more-strongly-worded section heading directly.

In fact, I included it as the best evidence I found for your point: That if I read any textbook on the philosopy of science, it will spell out how "science" is "a particular method of peer review." Well... I found some evidence that kind of points that way, and a whole boatload that suggests that that isn't really thought of as part of the Demarcation Problem. I wasn't going in trying to "be right," that's just what I found.

Like I put quite a bit of work in good faith to try to understand where you're coming from, but I don't feel like you're trying to meet me half way.

Your desire to collapse all fact-finding into the concept of “science”

Well that's a reach. I had to buy a new laptop charger and find facts about what voltage, etc. I needed... I certainly don't consider that fact-finding exercise to be science, and I don't think I said anything to suggest that.

But okay, I don't have a textbook handy, but let's see what we can find out about the Philosophy of Science:

Philosophy of Science - Wikipedia

Seems to pretty clearly indicate "lots of interesting and useful ideas, no consensus." Peer review mentioned 0 times. The "Defining Science" section links to a page for the demarcation problem, so let's go look at that.

Demarcation Problem - Wikipedia

"The debate continues after more than two millennia of dialogue among philosophers of science and scientists in various fields."

And the article basically continues to that effect, IMO: Demarcation is difficult, unclear, and there is no consensus. Peer review mentioned 0 times.

Maybe it's just Wikipedia that has this misconception. Let's check some other sources.

The Philosophy of Science - UC Berkeley, Understanding Science 101

"Despite this diversity of opinion, philosophers of science can largely agree on one thing: there is no single, simple way to define science!"

Re: Demarcation problem:

"Modern philosophers of science largely agree that there is no single, simple criterion that can be used to demarcate the boundaries of science."

Starting to sound familiar. Lots of opinions from Aristotle to Cartwright, none of whom highlight peer review or acceptance by the institutions as criteria. The page does talk about empiricism, parsimony, falsification, etc. though, consistent with other sources.

Glossary - "science" - UC Berkeley, Understanding Science 101

This one is simple:

Our knowledge of the natural world and the process through which that knowledge is built. The process of science relies on the testing of ideas with evidence gathered from the natural world. Science as a whole cannot be precisely defined but can be broadly described by a set of key characteristics. To learn more, visit A science checklist.

Let's look at the checklist.

Science is embedded in the scientific community - UC Berkeley, Understanding Science 101

The page heading sounds pretty prescriptive, and that's about the closest I can find that claims "if it's not peer reviewed, it's not science." The body (IMO rightfully) describes the importance of community involvement in science, but doesn't say anything like "it's not science unless it involves the community."

Take this excerpt about Gregor Mendel:

However, even in such cases [as Gregor Mendel's], research must ultimately involve the scientific community if that work is to have any impact on the progress of science.

So yes, sharing his findings with the world was why it was able to have an impact, but I don't think it's reasonable to interpret that he wasn't doing science while he was working in isolation, or that it only became science retroactively after it was a) shared, and b) accepted.

Let's take a look at another textbook and see what it says:

1.6: Science and Non-Science - Introduction to History and Philosophy of Science

This chapter suggests that you can take two approaches to demarcation:

• What makes a theory scientific or non-scientific?
• What makes a "change in a scientific mosaic" scientific?

For theories - They're clear that there are no clear universal demarcation criteria, but offer these suggestions:

• Suggestion 1: An empirical theory is scientific if it is based on experience.
• Suggestion 2: An empirical theory is considered scientific if it explains all the known facts of its domain.
• Suggestion 3: An empirical theory is scientific if it explains, by and large, the known facts of its domain.

For changes - This pertains specifically to whether a change to "a scientific mosaic" is scientific or not, which necessarily pertains to a scientific community. But I'd argue that this analysis seems pretty clearly downstream of a priori participation in a scientific community, not attempting to define science as such.

Didn't read the whole textbook, so I might still be missing something, but the focus in the chapter is still definitely on the properties of the inquiry, not on the scientific institutions surrounding it.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Also looked at the entries for Scientific Method and Pseudo-science, which seem to be consistent with the other sources

TL;DR/Conclusion

So I'm still getting a really strong signal that:

• Science/non-science doesn't have a clear demarcation line, and that problem is called the Demarcation Problem. It has a special name because it's still a big deal.
• Ideas about what is science vs. non-science focus mostly on the properties of the inquiry: Is it a testable, falsifiable hypothesis that can be investigated with empirical observations?
• Scientific communities are still super important, and you can make statements about how scientific activity should interact with communities, but community involvement is not usually a factor in demarcation
• Peer review is useful and stuff, but has little interaction with the science/non-science demarcation question... I don't think it came up in any of the sources I looked at

So... Do I still seem misguided? Are Wikipedia and UC Berkeley and this textbook called "Introduction to History and Philosophy of Science" and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy all also misguided? Or am I just interpreting them wrong?

Like I started this investigation feeling 100% ready to learn that my concept of "what Science is" was misguided... But idk, I did a bunch of reading based on your suggestion, and I gotta say I feel pretty guided right now.

If you wanna throw something else to read my way though, I'll happily have a look at it.

Science is a particular method of peer review...?

This thread prompted me to revisit what I think "science" means, and I've been through a number of different Wikipedia pages, dictionary definitions, etc. but that inquiry just reinforced that this "science == participation in the institutions/communities of science" idea just doesn't seem to hold up.

Where does this idea come from? I keep seeing this "science is this very particular thing, it's not just forming falsifiable hypotheses and then testing them," but then when I look it up, the sources I find say exactly the opposite.

EDIT: To respond, backwards, to the edit below, I guess...? That's not really a gotcha, and not really what I was saying, lol. Please read the whole thread.

If we're talking about gatekeeping what is and isn't capital-S Science, I'd really like to know where these "hard definitions" are coming from.

Wikipedia's page for the Scientific Method seems to get it wrong when it describes it as "a general set of principles," the core of which is forming falsifiable hypotheses and testing them... and the details vary from field to field and across different time periods. Sounds like you can do that at home.

The page for Science appears to also contradict the "hard definition" when it describes science as spanning most of human history, long before the modern institutions of formal publication and peer review, and doesn't describe them as mandatory at all. Definitely doable at home, as far as I can tell.

That's not to say that scientific collaboration isn't valuable, btw... I just can't find any basis to support the idea that if it's not published in a formal academic journal, then it's definitely not science, and that science CAN'T happen without the involvement of the institutions.

So like... Where does this "hard definition" that people keep talking about come from, and why doesn't Wikipedia seem to know about it?

"Nuance" and "discussion" did not appear to be part of either participant's intent.

The word "legit" there is doing alot of work.

Much more measured take than "if it's not published, then it definitely is not science."

Warcraft: Orcs and Humans, fam.

Typically they don't operate without infantry support, so they'd likely be in radio contact with forward observers. But yes, in some circumstances it could be a reconnaissance UAV.

Nothing, but sometimes you don't want to be right to such an extreme degree.

Wolf eats sheep while you're yeeting the cabbage.

Yeah, this is the context here. The trend was to have these super dense home pages with all sorts of overwhelming noise, like the Yahoo home page:

Google was remarkable for bucking that trend, and basically still does have that ultra focused home page. It's not that now Google shows you ads and a weather widget in the search results-- it's that it's got the good sense to at least wait until you search for something.

Not to detract from the enshittification-themed comments or anything. Please do carry on, fellows.

It's still around!

I WFH so there's a 53% chance that I'm spending those 25 minutes walking my dog.

But for the remaining 47%...!

The Holy Spirit Board is the only spirit board designed to directly contact our lord and savior Jesus Christ! Unlike other spirit boards that are often used to contact ghosts and demons, this is a one way ticket straight to heaven. Try it today, and discover a new way to pray!

I want so bad for someone to ELI5 the belief system that includes:

• Ghosts, demons, and a conscious ephemeral Jesus Christ are all out there waiting to be contacted
• Sliding a thing across a board is an effective way to talk to them, but like... Shaking up some Scrabble tiles, or scribbling on a sheet of paper with your eyes closed or whatever is not
• Which invisible entity you're talking to depends on the theme and art of the board

REALLY curious to know how all of that fits together.

Fourth biggest!