5 ms·

> Sounds nice, but as a scientist I can say that it would be a huge overhead to have to constantly prepare half finished work for public consumption throughout

> Sounds nice, but as a scientist I can say that it would be a huge overhead to have to constantly prepare half finished work for public consumption throughout the entire process of a study. How about writing into a (public) blog, instead of a lab notebook?

radarsat1 8y ago
First, my notes are not nearly well-organized enough to have any kind of coherence for anyone but me. Do you think it's interesting for me to answer public questions, to defend ideas that I haven't even completely thought through yet? But secondly, why would I want to publish my half-baked, unproven ideas? I can see two possible outcomes: (1) I completely embarrass myself because they are stupid ideas that I haven't verified, or (2) they are good ideas and someone takes them and runs faster than I can and beats me to a result. I see zero advantage for me to do what you say. I think this idea of let's do every step of science 100% in the open are completely forgetting that science is a social process. Putting things out there has consequences. The onus is on the scientist to verify things before saying them. There is a word for "scientists" who do not. Personally I don't believe that that is something that will change in the next 100 years.
- bloomer 8y ago
  The current “science as a career” model of science with public grants etc stems entirely from the development of the atomic bomb and World War II resulting in Vanevar Bush proposal of the NSF. I sincerely doubt that science will be practiced anything like it’s current form in 100 years. What it will look like is an interesting question.
the6threplicant 8y ago
Great so people hostile to your research (eg Republicans) can turn your research political because they can take your notes out of context (try using the word "trick" in your research journal or emails) and use it against you or your research area.

radarsat1 8y ago

First, my notes are not nearly well-organized enough to have any kind of coherence for anyone but me. Do you think it's interesting for me to answer public questions, to defend ideas that I haven't even completely thought through yet? But secondly, why would I want to publish my half-baked, unproven ideas? I can see two possible outcomes: (1) I completely embarrass myself because they are stupid ideas that I haven't verified, or (2) they are good ideas and someone takes them and runs faster than I can and beats me to a result. I see zero advantage for me to do what you say. I think this idea of let's do every step of science 100% in the open are completely forgetting that science is a social process. Putting things out there has consequences. The onus is on the scientist to verify things before saying them. There is a word for "scientists" who do not. Personally I don't believe that that is something that will change in the next 100 years.

bloomer 8y ago
The current “science as a career” model of science with public grants etc stems entirely from the development of the atomic bomb and World War II resulting in Vanevar Bush proposal of the NSF. I sincerely doubt that science will be practiced anything like it’s current form in 100 years. What it will look like is an interesting question.

the6threplicant 8y ago

Great so people hostile to your research (eg Republicans) can turn your research political because they can take your notes out of context (try using the word "trick" in your research journal or emails) and use it against you or your research area.