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?"
-
-
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)
- 10 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Does the movement refer mainly to those influencing others to do open science? Or also include anybody who just does open science themselves
-
Given the how sensitive those opposed to changing are, I suspect it includes anyone who does open science.
-
It's a very broad church. Yep.
-
Just to be clear, it's the latter then? In your understanding/opinion I mean. (Just want to understand what the debate is even about)
-
The debate, if you want to call it that, is what I already outlined. Not about breadth but existence.
-
Okay, I think I see. From where I'm sitting there certainly exists a bona fide open science movement
-
And my point is, if this is true (& as I said elsewhere it is to some degree) then that is really a bad thing. It shouldn't be a club!
-
Anyway I'm happy to discuss in long form in comments on blog. Trying to stay out of endless twitter threads...
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
It would be silly to avoid the issues that arise from the groupie phenom. That does seem to be a reproducible aspect of human nature...
-
Yep. Glad you agree.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.

