the original claim, which I don't really care much and find pretty obvious, such that I am not really even all that interested in debating the point except for amusement, was that "science advances only through the open literature" its a tautology in a sense that I was referring to collaborative science, not private experiments. science in its most powerful form, that in service to humanity, is of course not this type, although I wouldn't be surprised if a antisocial anarchist for example confused the two either deliberately or through a characteristically muddled mind.
Doesn't matter how the establishment (whatever that might be) looked on him or not...
well, the original point was about "establishment science"..
My main point has been to refute your notion that any one who elects not to publish in the open literature cannot be a scientist. I know of many scientists who could not publish, or chose not to for various reasons.
ah yes, scientists in their own mind, like that saying, "a legend in his own mind"
I mentioned the Manhattan Project scientists. (Choate made some bizarre claim after this mention that all of the science was known in the 20 and 30s, and that no actual science was done by MP "engineers" and "technicians." Might be a surprise to Ulam, Teller, von Neumann, and all the others who worked in secrecy on the atom bomb, then the hydrogen bomb, and so on.)
it was science that was of borderline benefit to humanity, which was exactly my initial point. how much has the atom bomb served humanity? perhaps such abominations of technology require secrecy, no?
The point being that open publication is only a part of the methodology of doing science, and a fairly recent one, too.
no, it has been considered the key ingredient of modern science since its inception. concepts of publication and proper attribution for example have been around for centuries.
--Tim May and his Tentacles
call me a sentimental fool but just love it when they waggle suggestively like that!!