Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality
Vladerusky: Your original post brought up several separate aspects which can be considered separately and may not necessarily coexist in the same place at the same time: 1) secrecy 2) responsibility for publishing 3) working for the government at the expense of unwilling payors 4) the motivations of "true scientists" 5) the requirements for the advancement of science 6) the need of science for the works of great minds Initially your argument had to do with secrecy and the need for scientists to publish their work so that the scientific community may benefit from it. I can't disagree that if a scientist is working for the public, that they should make their work publically available to them, since, after all, they are supposedly working for the public benefit. But you also said that "a key aspect of SCIENCE is publishing". I was only pointing out that, in the context of those who are working for their own purposes and not under the employment of a government agency, some scientists are not overly concerned about contributing to this advancement, as can be observed by their reluctance to publish (even if they eventually do, "under the extreme pressure of friends", for instance). It may be your conclusion that the advancement of science depends upon scientists publishing their works, but the fact is that some great scientists, and many others as well, are not as motivated to contribute as you think is proper for a "true scientist". I think you should distinguish between those scientistis who have joined some kind of "scientific community" and have established an obligation to share the results of their work with that group, and those scientists who are what they are, and do what they do, from motivations unrelated to such communities. .. Blanc
Blanc
Initially your argument had to do with secrecy and the need for scientists to publish their work so that the scientific community may benefit from it.
Not just the scientific community... everyone. If an art critic declines to publish something, its a loss probably only to his fellow art critics, but if a mathematician or a biologist or a physicist doesn't publish, it's a loss for more than just his colleagues.
I can't disagree that if a scientist is working for the public, that they should make their work publically available to them, since, after all, they are supposedly working for the public benefit.
I assume most of the research results from NIH or NIMH are publicly available. Unfortunatey, none of the stuff done at NSA gets published. Of course NSA today is nothing like the NSA in the past. We're not missing much by not seeing whatever inept drivel is produced by Clinton's affirmativr action appointees. Phooey.
But you also said that "a key aspect of SCIENCE is publishing". I was only pointing out that, in the context of those who are working for their own purposes and not under the employment of a government agency, some scientists are not overly concerned about contributing to this advancement, as can be observed by their reluctance to publish (even if they eventually do, "under the extreme pressure of friends", for instance).
Perhaps they would publish if there were an economic incentive to.
I think you should distinguish between those scientistis who have joined some kind of "scientific community" and have established an obligation to share the results of their work with that group, and those scientists who are what they are, and do what they do, from motivations unrelated to such communities.
Instead of thinking in terms obligations, think of economic incentives. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
bw does a good job of separating out a few memes for discussion;
Initially your argument had to do with secrecy and the need for scientists to publish their work so that the scientific community may benefit from it.
I was not talking so much about a need, but a duty as a scientist. I was talking about other *duties* of responsible scientists. it is interesting that physicians have a Hippocratic oath, but do scientists have an oath? there are informal ideas and taboos that circulate I think should be codified. I suggest some that involve secrecy and the use of moral principles in the pursuit of science. something most anarchists here will deny is the existence of something that could be called *immoral science*. is there such a thing? I find it trivial to see that there is. but perhaps someone that is opposed to morality, or is a moral relativist, or has a muddled mind, or whatever, will reject anything that uses the word "moral". in fact you might even start a flamewar among such people for using such a word like a red flag in front of a bull, a deliciously juicy and delectable flamewar at that!!
But you also said that "a key aspect of SCIENCE is publishing". I was only pointing out that, in the context of those who are working for their own purposes and not under the employment of a government agency, some scientists are not overly concerned about contributing to this advancement, as can be observed by their reluctance to publish (even if they eventually do, "under the extreme pressure of friends", for instance).
absolutely, and perhaps this secrecy is a useful atmosphere for abominations to flourish. has anyone asked why it is that people in our war factories (and they are vast, make no mistake) make weapons merely because they are *feasible*?? who is it that uses such a feeble, dark, deluded worldview to navigate the world? answer: many thousands of people being paid handsome salaries by your tax money extracted every week from your paycheck. many people who consider themselves the elite intellectuals of humanity. many people who have made an art of making themselves unaccountable to government oversight with the easy help of the indifferent, lazy, and apathetic masses.
It may be your conclusion that the advancement of science depends upon scientists publishing their works, but the fact is that some great scientists, and many others as well, are not as motivated to contribute as you think is proper for a "true scientist".
it is not my own conclusion. it is a simple truth that would be considered obvious by most scientific authorities.
I think you should distinguish between those scientistis who have joined some kind of "scientific community" and have established an obligation to share the results of their work with that group, and those scientists who are what they are, and do what they do, from motivations unrelated to such communities.
fair enough. those scientists that are being paid with taxpayer money. and they are littered all over secret government agencies, sucking up money like black vacuums, while they create irrelevant, distracting diversions and decoys for the population to wail about such as welfare, social security, etc. perhaps there might be enough money to go around if so much of it wasn't being encased in the steel frames of the most technological weaponry-- killing technology far more efficient than the ovens of Auschvitz-- ever in existence. now being perfected with the help of your paycheck taxes..... gosh, why would anyone care about any of this? to all the newbies on this list-- I warn you-- the rumors are all true, I really AM INSANE!! BWAHAHAHHAHAHA
participants (3)
-
Blanc
-
dlv@bwalk.dm.com
-
Vladimir Z. Nuri