Slashdot Mirror
What Open Source Shares With Science
An anonymous reader sends in a philosophical piece at ZDNet about the similarities between open source development and the scientific method. Here's an excerpt:
"The speed of progress is greatly enhanced by virtue of the fact the practitioners of Science publish not only results, but methodology, and techniques. In programmatic terms, this is equivalent to both the binary and the source code. This not only helps 'bootstrap' others into the field, to learn from the examples set, but makes it possible for others to verify or refute the results (or techniques) under investigation. In an almost guided-Darwinian evolutionary fashion, this makes the scientific process a powerful tool for the highlighting, analysis and possible culling of ideas and concepts; less useful ideas and hypothesEs die, and likely contenders come sharply into focus. Newton made his famous comment about 'standing on the shoulders of giants,' in part, to indicate that his contributions to human knowledge could not have been achieved solely. He needed the 'firmament' beneath him hypothesized, tested and confirmed by generations of scientists, philosophers and thinkers before him, over centuries."
As long as scientific results and techniques are hidden in very expensive privately-run journals and conference proceedings,
it cannot in any sense be considered open in the same sense as open-source or "fsf-free" software.
I would like to pursue scientific research as an amateur, but am prevented from doing so.
And this problem doesn't apply only to me, but to countless fully qualified scientists whose institutions cannot
afford the knowledge.
Science badly needs a Bastille day.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Yes, yes, we all know about 'The Cathedral and the Bazaar', but your characterisation of science as a cathedral with priests is way out of line. The same spirit of taking what works and building on it is the foundation of scientific endeavour. There's no "one true way" or revered holy texts of science, only what works. When something is found to not work, it has to be changed or discarded...
You can try belittling qualifications, but getting qualified isn't some sort of indoctrination process (or at least it shouldn't be, granted it might resemble indoctrination in some places, but I submit that those places are turning out bad scientists, however qualified they are). As science advances, the necessary knowledge, experience and learning to make a meaningful contribution only grows, meaning people have to spend those years of study and specialisation, learning about what's gone before, to reach a point in a field where they can do something new.
What is this 'qualification' you speak of?
Granted, your odds of getting peer reviewed is quite small without the requisite sheepskins hanging on your office wall. But there's nothing in the rule book that says science can't be done in one's garage.
The nature of some science dictates the need for some rather exotic equipment. And my neighborhood has a covenant against building LHCs in one's garage. But it isn't unknown for amateurs to discover comets or other objects.
Have gnu, will travel.
Software, like science, produces a non-rival public good. (Nonrival means it is not consumed when somebody uses it.) But there are private research companies just like there are private software companies.
I used to work in a publicly-funded virology lab studying Hepatitis C Virus (HCV). My biggest result was finding this particular human gene that HCV required in order to infect a person. If you took liver tissue, knocked out that gene, and tried to infect it with HCV... no infection. Has anyone seen this before? Nothing in the scientific literature, but we found a dusty old patent from a company that had clearly found this connection years earlier, but never published it or followed it up. The company was likely hedging its bets in case it wanted to follow up later. HCV kills tens of thousands of people a year (liver cancer). Just makes me so frustrated.
Most people are already familiar with negative market externalities like pollution or overfishing. Science and software both exemplify positive externalities, which are just as problematic in free market capitalism. If only there were a clear way to internalize externalities!
You are wrong. Anyone can practice science --- follow the scientific method and you are a scientist.... The problem is whether you've established a history of valid application of that method and if your demonstrates that integrity upon review for publication.
The ivory towers you pretend to exist are only a figment of your imagination and/or ignorance.