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?"
-
-
Replying to @sampendu @chrisdc77
We could call it alt-closed science. Wait that might not be a good idea.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Bropen science
2 replies 1 retweet 22 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @BrentWRoberts and
Although to clarify, my take isn't aligned with a lot in these blogs lately — they all think
#openscience isn't a movement.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
I think there is a sentiment, that I share, that there should really be no distinction between open science and science. >
1 reply 2 retweets 4 likes -
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Another question is whether we should worry about it. I suspect the in-group aspect has marginal effects compared to changing incentives.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
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.
3 replies 1 retweet 9 likes -
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)
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
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)
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes
I assumed you putting something in scare quotes implies you think it's not real. Glad you agree it is in fact a movement. 
-
-
But I disagree on this notion of being part of moments... So being against sexism doesn't mean you're in the feminism movement?
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. 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.