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

Sat Jan 12 20:09:48 UTC 2013

Thomas

glad that some interesting core points are crystalizing in this
otherwise difficult discussion

. In any case thanks for the oppOrtunity to bring to the light how
unscientific can science become when
left to  reductionsm alone. telegraphic replies inline P

> So, you assert I'm objectively wrong that they're separate,

yes

> but acknowledge that someone who supports one may or may not support the other?
yes

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

every choice of lens comes with built in distortions -
 bias is inevitable, but generally adopting a choice of methods
(lenses), the bias can be reduced

> And yet, by calling it an act of courage, you are judging him. You judge him
> very favourably, as I expected you would.

I tend to view favourably anyone who brings me truth, even if I do not
like them personally, and I definitely do not view as favourable
anyone who hides the truth, or justifies the hiding of the truth
but this should not be a personal discussion here I don't think-

> The commonly accepted definition of science does not include the information
> Mannings and Assange released.
thats because obviously you are refusing to acknowledge the importance
of the socio-polical context which constrains and shapes how science
evolves and its outcomes and impact
I find this a shortfall of  some scientists not realising what is
going on in the real world outside their labs  and how this
impactstheir work

 >>Let's not start redefining the word science.

redefining the boundaries of science - that someetimes implies
constantly updating our lexical boundaries -  can be a necessity for
making scientific progress
(note: demandprogress is down http://demandprogress.org)

>> 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.

no comment  :-)  everyone is entitled to view the world the way they prefer

thanks for the discussion

(...got work to do)

cheers

PDM
>
> Thomas