So, inspired by @chrisdc77 I've now thoroughly unclenched my own arse over this issue: http://wp.me/p5UOkc-2qx "Is open science tone deaf?"
-
-
I think there is a sentiment, that I share, that there should really be no distinction between open science and science. >
-
I'm worried twitter's lack of nuance will carry us out into an is-ought fallacy. But sure, all science should be open, yes.
-
Another question is whether we should worry about it. I suspect the in-group aspect has marginal effects compared to changing incentives.
-
Well, insisting we're not a movement = rhetorical play that has been used in and by other groups to sidestep criticism. I've seen it before.
-
See, I think it's exactly the opposite: It actually prevents others from becoming part of it & spreading the virus to all of science (1/3)
-
I also never claimed there was no movement. The point is being open doesn't require being part of "the movement," nor should it. (2/3)
-
And finally, I explicitly said that science has a diversity problem. That needs to change regardless of how open or closed science is. (3/3)
-
It does need to change, yes. One of the core tenets of
#openscience is diversity and inclusivity. - 7 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Of course, that sentiment ignores the fact that we've been practicing "closed, trust me I'm famous" science for a long time.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

