[open-science] open access perils? (#RIP @aaronscwarz)

[Thomas Kluyver]

On 12 January 2013 19:03, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio at gmail.com> wrote:

> nooooo, they are not separate. you may see them as separate, and i
> respect your view
> but that's just the way you are looking at them (or the particular
> lens you are using) that makes them separate
>

So, you assert I'm objectively wrong that they're separate, but acknowledge
that someone who supports one may or may not support the other?

I maintain that openness in scientific research and in political/military
matters are distinct issues, and it is your 'lens' that conflates them.


> Let me give an analogous example in relation to disaster management .
> To save the life of the guy which has fallen in the undeground
> railways, the experienced
> war veteran had to break the law that says 'do not cross the railways'
> In breaking the law, this man saves a life
>

There are certainly cases where breaking the law is philosophically
justified. But that fact doesn't automatically justify any specific case.


> Bradley may have broken the law, for a much bigger, higher and important
> goal: opening the eyes of the american people and of the world as to
> the system that governs them.
>
> You want to judge Bradley?  I dont know any law , written by humans,
> capable of
> judging such an act of courage.
>

And yet, by calling it an act of courage, you are judging him. You judge
him very favourably, as I expected you would. I brought this up to
illustrate that a proponent of open science does not share all your views
about openness.

> My point is that I'm here for open science, not open
> > everything.
>
> my point is: science CONCERNS everything, nothing excluded, although I
> accept
> scientists like to partition reality in different ways suitable to them
>

The commonly accepted definition of science does not include the
information Mannings and Assange released. Let's not start redefining the
word science.


> > To be clear, what I described as a big conclusion was your suggestion
> that
> > the justice systems of multiple countries can be manipulated to serve
> > specific interests.
>
> Here's is a timeline that to me shows clearly how the corrupt justice
> system in Sweden and the UK are colluding to ruin a whistleblower
> using arbitrary arguments, without having to be just nor justified. I
> do not have a problem if you interpret the facts in this timelinein
> another way.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341
>

That's your interpretation of the facts, not what the facts themselves say.
If you want to believe in a shadowy conspiracy, I'm sure it looks like
that. But the facts don't clearly show anything of the sort.

Thomas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20130112/87a7dd05/attachment-0001.html>