AlphaFold doesn’t come out of academia. That doesn’t make it non-scientific. As Feymann said in his cargo-cult science speech, plenty of academic work is not properly tested. Being peer-reviewed doesn’t make something scientific.
Conceptually, I think you are making a mistake when you treat ideas and experiments as the same and equate the probability of an experiment finding a result as the same as the idea being true. Finding a good experiment to do to test an idea is nontrivial.
A friend of mine was working in a psychology lab and according to my friend the professor leading the lab was mostly trying to p-hack her way into publishing results.
Another friend, spoke approvingly of the work of the same professor because the professor managed to get Buddhist ideas into academic psychology and now the official scientific definition of the term resembles certain Buddhist notions.
The professor has a well-respected research career in her field.
AlphaFold doesn’t come out of academia. That doesn’t make it non-scientific. As Feymann said in his cargo-cult science speech, plenty of academic work is not properly tested. Being peer-reviewed doesn’t make something scientific.
Conceptually, I think you are making a mistake when you treat ideas and experiments as the same and equate the probability of an experiment finding a result as the same as the idea being true. Finding a good experiment to do to test an idea is nontrivial.
A friend of mine was working in a psychology lab and according to my friend the professor leading the lab was mostly trying to p-hack her way into publishing results.
Another friend, spoke approvingly of the work of the same professor because the professor managed to get Buddhist ideas into academic psychology and now the official scientific definition of the term resembles certain Buddhist notions.
The professor has a well-respected research career in her field.