3 ms·
Your point is a bit inflammatory, but it's at least actionable. If what you're saying is indeed true, then we're not looking at a technical problem; we're looki
by cscheid 15y ago
Your point is a bit inflammatory, but it's at least actionable. If what you're saying is indeed true, then we're not looking at a technical problem; we're looking at a social problem.
Social problems cannot be solved by technical solutions.
Not directly, at least.
During my PhD, I worked on a system whose idea was essentially to make the process of getting to the raw data from the figures easy. Scientists would be hooked by the ability to quickly create data analysis one-off scripts, but the system also kept track of the data (and the scripts required to get to the data) transparently, so it was as easy to create a "reproducible figure" than it was to create a "figure". Think 'integrated, transparent version control for data analysis and visualization'.
It works well, and some people like it. But the social problem remains: you really want network effects to kick in.
- apl 15y ago> If what you're saying is indeed true, then we're not > looking at a technical problem; we're looking at a social > problem. Thinking otherwise is, quite frankly, delusional. The technology has been available for years. It's purely a matter of culture, and I'm frustrated by the persistent belief that science methodology needs better engineering.
- aangjie 15y agoAgreed.. Though, am very hesitant blame it upon scientists. Having been through a masters by research graduate course, and having seen the internal politics, i can empathize with scientists' reluctance to publish raw data.