He could have known Notch, though that guy doesn’t seem the climbing type, lol.

Do they have the exact same amount of experience as well?

Like, even if their platforms are the same, they probably have different backgrounds and accomplishments.

Peer review isn’t typically included in the list of steps to the scientific method. Or, if it is, it’s a coda, not part of the main steps.

Dictionary.com for example lists the commonly accepted steps, and then follows it up with “usually followed by peer review and publication.”

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/scientific-method

Note the “usually.”

It’s also worth noting that there is no real “formalized” or “official” scientific method. Just some agreed upon commonalities. Any dozen science books will give you a dozen different graphs of the steps, and no two will be the same.

I reread my post and I’m not sure what you took as aggressive? That I used the word delusional? I didn’t intend that to be harsh, but sorry if it came across that way.

But, in my experience, arguments over how words are defined are usually unproductive because language is inherently arbitrary, so I’m fine calling it here. I doubt we’d make any progress.

I hope life is treating you well and you have a pleasant evening.

If you aren’t saying that “science isn’t science without collaboration,” can you give an example of something that is science without collaboration? I only ask because you state that’s not what you’re saying, but follow it up with what, to my attempt at reading comprehension, is you just restating the thing you said you aren’t saying.

And I would argue science done in secret can have enormous impacts beyond “simply profits.” The Manhattan Project for example. I think it would be absurd to say what was going on there was anything but science, but there was no collaboration with the greater scientific community or intent to share their findings.

And look, of course you can be a researcher without being a scientist. Historians are researchers but not scientists obviously. But when what you are researching is physics and natural sciences, you are a scientist. That’s what the word literally means. When your definition requires you to eliminate Sir Isaac Newton, maybe it’s your definition that’s wrong.

You say you see no problem with calling an apple a fruit when broadly speaking. Neither do I. But that doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t be absolutely delusional to insist that an apple wasn’t actually an apple.

Another great example.

So, first and foremost it is important to recognize we are having a definition argument. The crux of our disagreement is over the definition of “science,” specifically as it relates to the act of doing it.

Now, obviously anyone can claim that any word means anything they want. I can claim that the definition of “doing science” is making grilled cheese sandwiches. That doesn’t make it so.

So, as with all arguments over the definition of words, I find appealing to the dictionary a good place to start. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science Which, having read through all the possible definitions, does not seem to carry any connotation of mandatory collaboration.

Now, the dictionary is obviously not the be all and end all. Words have colloquial meanings that are sometimes not captured, or nuance can be lost in transcribing the straight meaning of the word. But I think that the onus is on you to justify why you believe that meaning is lost.

And note, what I’m not arguing is that science isn’t collaborative. Of course it is. There are huge benefits to collaboration, and it is very much the norm. But you have stated an absolute. “Science isn’t science without collaboration.” And that is the crux of our disagreement.

And as to why I wouldn’t just call it “research.” First, I see no reason to. By both my colloquial definition and the one in the dictionary (by my estimation), it is in fact science. But, more importantly, if we take your definition, you are relegating the likes of great scientists like Newton, Cavendish, Mendel, and Killing to the title of mere “researchers.” And I find the idea of calling any of those greats anything short of a scientist absurdly reductive.

What makes science a group activity by necessity?

Why is one person employing the scientific method to better understand the world around them “not doing science”?

Heck, I can think of a half dozen other examples of things that aren’t published and/or can’t be reproduced but would be considered science.

If I had an unpublished workbook of Albert Einstein, would I say the work in it “isn’t science”?

If I publish a book outlining a hypothesis about the origins of the Big Bang, is it not science because it doesn’t have any reproducible experiments?

Is any research that deadends in a uninteresting way that isn’t worthy of publication not science?

I like dunking on Elon as much as the next guy, but like, “only things that are published get the title of ‘science’” seems like a pretty indefensible take to me…

I think what you are probably actually after, based on your description/comments is a flash card app, not a dictionary app?

To that end, seems like a guy on the open source subreddit made a thread about it and built one that’s FOSS. Some other good suggestions in the thread, even if his solution isn’t what you’re after.

https://www.reddit.com/r/opensource/comments/14azw6d/an_open_source_flashcard_studying_system/

You’re gonna get mocked for saying compiler instead of interpreter, since python isn’t compiled.

But, to answer the spirit of your question, I’ve had good experiences with “Pydroid 3.” Clean interface and gets the job done.

I think I’d need a side by side list to make an informed judgement.

I think this issue is also more nuanced than you’ll see it given credit for in the media.

I think there’s some strong “War in Iraq” parallels that can be drawn that might help reflect why the US is reacting the way they are.

To summarize, small group of terrorists commit an attack that is one of the worst in the nations history. This country that was attacked has a much better funded military, and they roll in to exact retribution, notionally under the banner of “stopping the people who did this and not letting it happen again.” The war of revenge is hugely detrimental to the civilian population therein, and human rights violations occur.

Most establishment politicians were/are fully on board with the War in Iraq. Why wouldn’t they be on board with Israel right now? It’s basically the same situation again.

I think that a lot of what you see online forgets that this wasn’t some random thing where Israel just decided to commit a genocide out of nowhere. But just like how 9/11 didn’t justify the War in Iraq, 10/7 doesn’t justify what’s happening now. But it’s somewhat understandable why it’s happening, and why people support it.

I remember right after 9/11, the vast majority of people were on board with sending troops in. The dissenters were super few and far between. This is just that again, but Israel this time.