Although to clarify, my take isn't aligned with a lot in these blogs lately — they all think #openscience isn't a movement. 
-
-
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'm not sure how to resolve this with you because I get exactly the opposite from my experience.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
And the reason for your exp is that we continue to insist view OS as a revolutionary cabal instead of infecting everyone with the idea
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Yes, some of us are a clique. One I'm very aware I'm not in. I still taught all my students about
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
open science and specifically open source when I taught them to code. Same with my previous and current lab.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
When I teach about openness I don't give them a list of "cool people". Merely practises for them to follow.
-
-
I have seen others tech it as: these are the cool people. Is this what you mean by cabal?
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.