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.
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 -
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)
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
It does need to change, yes. One of the core tenets of
#openscience is diversity and inclusivity.3 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
That particular tenet will ultimately be the movement's undoing I'm afraid. Are those umbrella tenets canonized more formally somewhere?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cane51000 @o_guest and
glad you’re asking. Lots of people are working on formulating those tenets, e.g.https://scholarlycommons.org/
1 reply 3 retweets 5 likes
Open means open, yes! Awesome project BTW.
-
-
Replying to @o_guest @cane51000 and
thanks! It’s a big team working on this and we formed a dedicated subgroup to work on issues of inclusivity.
0 replies 0 retweets 3 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.