tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8161161431451849208.post5121627937053107965..comments2024-03-28T02:45:03.204-07:00Comments on Antediluvian Salad: Breaking Through the 4th Wall: OPEN SCIENCE's Promise of a New Scientific & Spiritual KingdomDuane Nashhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14467779935085970909noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8161161431451849208.post-41491290000767733602017-09-08T08:29:43.394-07:002017-09-08T08:29:43.394-07:00Thanks Lu!! While I don't actively participate...Thanks Lu!! While I don't actively participate in a true academia setting - you can hardly call the online paleocommunity academia - I don't have to research very far into to see loads of testimonials like yours and even as an undergraduate I saw the writing on the wall as goes the institution of academia.<br /><br />On negative studies: I totally agree. In fact any researcher or scientist that quickly, unflinchingly, and resolutely states "I was wrong" always earns my highest regards. <br /><br />On the "real world": That, along with a certain amount of ego-death on the part of some in academia, would be the hardest challenge. Just know that what we call the "real world" is in fact partially a cultural contraction and part and parcel to the time period you are in. What constitutes the "real world" has and will change. It was once considered the "real world" to be condemned into slavery & servitude; if female your life was hemmed into a rigid set of realities & possibilities; that you would probably die before you are 30; that you were a lowly serf and paid tribute to a king. That all the horrible conditions that humans have lived through were once considered the "natural" state of affairs and justified in those regards makes me think that any defense of any system just because it is how " the real world" operates becomes laughably absurd and transparently ridiculous. Duane Nashhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14467779935085970909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8161161431451849208.post-8311029412235253842017-09-08T07:08:34.942-07:002017-09-08T07:08:34.942-07:00Wow, great piece Duane! I generally agree with you...Wow, great piece Duane! I generally agree with your analysis of the problems plaguing science currently. The scientists in the laboratories I've worked with spend more time chasing grants and acting out their own personal Game of Thrones with their coworkers than conducting actual science. It's so problematic how negative studies (as in saying that "we did this test and our hypothesis was proven wrong") are basically never published because they earn scientists as much glory when being wrong is so fundamental to the nature of science. I don't know how effective Open Science would be, since nothing survives contact with the real world, but considering the deep flaws in the current system, I would be willing to give Open Science a shot!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06827953749890389191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8161161431451849208.post-68093377897798928622017-09-07T09:35:21.083-07:002017-09-07T09:35:21.083-07:00Also regarding the comparison between artists (spe...Also regarding the comparison between artists (specifically recording artists and large record companies). The analogy was that just as independent artists no longer needed the big recording companies to record, advertise and distribute their work with the internets scientists, in an open science framework, no longer need the publishing journals. They become obsolete.Duane Nashhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14467779935085970909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8161161431451849208.post-60507381385115832972017-09-07T09:29:27.815-07:002017-09-07T09:29:27.815-07:00@Cau
Regarding length. Hindsight 20/20 perhaps b...@Cau <br /><br />Regarding length. Hindsight 20/20 perhaps breaking it down into sequential chunks would be more useful. Perhaps I will iterate this piece in the future in smaller bite size chunks. I have done that in the past. As it stands now this piece has been percolating in my brain for some years and I just wanted to get it all out - an intellectual enema if you will.<br /><br />On peer review & naivety. Peer review is not the problem in my estimation. It is the limited and anonymous nature of peer review. Also the fact that the very act of peer review is nebulous and not properly defined. These are objections raised not just by me but by those that are active publishing academics. Where am I being naive? The fact that I don't engage in the system and parrot back the exact same critiques from those that do. I think you need to decouple my context of from the very real and documented critique of modern peer review being made by others. Again, you have sidestepped or not even read the far more expansive, progressive, and transparent method of peer review that OPEN SCIENCE advocates.<br /><br />In shore you mischaracterize my stance on peer review as "an evil machine destroying freedom" as I advocate more peer review in OPEN SCIENCE but done in a transparent format where the reviewer is held accountable.<br /><br />This is the point you missed or did not even read Andrea. OPEN SCIENCE blends the sort of blogging as "diary of an idea" that you mention with the peer review, archivability, and citable nature of a journal format. But not a static "journal" or "publication" one that can be augmented and changed in real time in complete transparency. I still don't think you are seeing the deconstruction I am outlining here. Blogging and publishing are not entirely how they once were but merged into this new thing in the OPEN SCIENCE format.<br /><br />In short OPEN SCIENCE is not the same beast as open access or pre-prints or blogging. In its logical conclusion it deconstructs the whole paradigm of how science is done, communicated, and promulgated. <br /><br />Perhaps you would be better served by decoupling my context from what OPEN SCIENCE is and promises. Maybe I merged the two a bit much in the piece and that is causing confusion? Again I ask that you merely sit with the ideas of OPEN SCIENCE and imagine that there is potentially a better way for science to proceed. Not just paleontology or mine own ideas but for science to really get its edge back; to make it more engaging, inclusive, and exciting; to allow it to proceed in a transparent and entertaining fashion; but most of all to allow the public at large to witness the process of science in real time. That science need not be done behind closed doors or "ivory towers" which will ultimately inform a more scientific literate and engaged populace. WHich is something I think we all want.<br />Duane Nashhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14467779935085970909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8161161431451849208.post-18391902389581949432017-09-07T04:12:13.388-07:002017-09-07T04:12:13.388-07:00My starting comment was from a blogger to a blogge...My starting comment was from a blogger to a blogger: if you want your interesting ideas to be read, allow readers to read them sequentially. <br />I think a series of linked post would fit this better than a single giant and very complex post, because that way you allow the reader to take the entire discussion with a series of guided steps. You produced the message, you must guide the reader the best way. Publishing a single post is not, in my opinion (and experience in blogging) not the best solution FOR YOUR MESSAGE.<br /><br />In any case, I have read almost all, and suspect that your vision of science and peer review is a bit naive. Peer review is more than just a bunch of anonymous scientists that demolish your manuscript. I encourage you to try to submit some of your ideas into peer-reviewed journals: instead of considering peer-review as an evil machine destroying freedom, it is a constructive challenge that improves your idea. Try it, not just complain! ;-)<br />My personal experience of open science is that the last decade has seen a good improvement of the different ways we disseminate and produce scientific literature. <br />Also, I feel that the scientific community cannot be properly compared to the artist community. The idea that scientific hypotheses, models and theories can be equated to artistic productions (as seems implicit in your arguments) is not adequate. I am the first that consider creative ideas the blood of science, but a body is not just blood: it is the skeleton, the brain and the gut too.<br /><br />Also, if you only mention Bakker and Horner (dino-guy-super-stars, I agree, but also a bit overrated by popular depiction of paleontology) and do not consider the great number of equally valid scientists that improved dinosaur sciences exactly as the two super-stars, and in ways not followed by Bakker or Horner themselves, you are misrepresenting the scientific community.<br /><br />In short, your ideas are interesting and worth of being read, but they seem a bit naive, from my perspective.<br /><br />I repeat: if you want your arguments to be trusted more, try at least once to publish in peer-reviewed literature: you will learn from the inside the problem that you are discussing from the outside alone.Andrea Cauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10855060597677361866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8161161431451849208.post-51932218705989711952017-09-07T01:11:19.401-07:002017-09-07T01:11:19.401-07:00@Andrea Cau
"Jesus… this it too long for a s...@Andrea Cau<br /><br />"Jesus… this it too long for a single blog post." Then don't read it in a single sitting. Take a week to read it. Its not meant to be an easy read. It sure took me longer than a week to write it. What I suspect is that you did not read the entire post, or probably just skimmed it. If you had read it I would expect some mention of OPEN SCIENCE which was the prevailing theme of the post. Get back to me if you have something more to say other than the canned response to Jingmai's quote which is basically just review and easily one of the least interesting aspects of the piece.Duane Nashhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14467779935085970909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8161161431451849208.post-89889169061712401192017-09-06T13:32:25.304-07:002017-09-06T13:32:25.304-07:00Jesus... this it too long for a single blog post.
...Jesus... this it too long for a single blog post.<br /><br />In any case, just a reply to the "Those who can, publish. Those who can't, blog." idea:<br /><br />I both write a blog and produce scientific peer-reviewed papers (and I am not alone in this). So, what's the problem? The two media are distinct media, for distinct purposes and target. I don't understand such elitism. The blog is used for those ideas that my experience says are not good for a paper. Sometimes, a post has become a paper (see for example, my 2015 Balaur paper and its ancestor posts in the Theropoda blog). One can use just one, or both, on none of them... what matters is to communicate our personal ideas. The others will use them the way they consider more adequate.Andrea Cauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10855060597677361866noreply@blogger.com