Fair analysis of the argument
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| montezuma Jan 07, 2008 6:18 PM EDT |
Lanier (the subject of this analysis not the author) seems to fear that an open source "mob mentality" will take over science in some way and prevent radical innovation. I find this kind of elitism astonishing. Open source development is actually very similar sociologically to scientific research. All scientific results are available to the community- Just like open source software. Scientific theories are tossed around (quite brutally) in the community-Just like open source software is by the user community. Both of these features are essential to both scientific progress and open source software progress. If someone has a brilliant idea in open source and wants to put in the "hard yards" and write the code, the community usually embraces the idea. Not always but usually. Science is no different. Anyway why would science change it's sociology to "mob rule" after 400 years of success. This fear of open source mob rule is really ridiculous. |
| thenixedreport Jan 08, 2008 1:39 PM EDT |
I'll give you a hint man. A lot of people in the high up scientific community do not want to share knowledge with the world. They want to have it to themselves, so they can feel superior to everyone else. |
| tuxchick Jan 08, 2008 1:45 PM EDT |
As I understand it, a fairly recent trend in US universities (since the 70s) has been to profit from their research. So even publicly-funded universities are squirreling their work away behind patents, trade secrets, and other legal handcuffs so they can make money. Science is a lot less open than it used to be. |
| thenixedreport Jan 08, 2008 1:51 PM EDT |
Bingo. ;) |
| Scott_Ruecker Jan 08, 2008 2:31 PM EDT |
Where I live, Arizona State University is doing just that. they have gone an a HUGE funding drive and have started consolidating and growing the number of their patents. |
| thenixedreport Jan 08, 2008 2:34 PM EDT |
So for those wondering why there are no flying cars running on alternative fuel sources that actually work......... now you get the idea (I hope). |
| tuxchick Jan 08, 2008 2:42 PM EDT |
Scott, I don't suppose the people who contribute to the fund drive will get shares of the patent swag... |
| Scott_Ruecker Jan 08, 2008 2:46 PM EDT |
Nope, they just get the privilege of kissing Robert Crow's (he is the University President) *** in front of others. |
| hkwint Jan 09, 2008 5:29 AM EDT |
So 'knowledgevalorization' (most of the times closing your research, keeping it secret and only opening it if no money can be made) not only happens in our country? |
| montezuma Jan 09, 2008 5:42 AM EDT |
Sorry to disillusion you conspiracy theory guys: Most scientists are actually judged in their careers on their output of scientific papers which are almost always freely available to most other scientists. Keeping things secret so they can feel superior would kill their careers. Point is that most regular people cannot decipher the research (kind of like deciphering the linux kernel code). These guys have other methods of feeling superior. Keeping their research secret is not one of them. Patents are something else since they refer usually to the APPLICATION of science not to the basic research. There I agree with you particularly with regard to drug research. |
| jdixon Jan 09, 2008 5:57 AM EDT |
> ...on their output of scientific papers which are almost always freely available to most other scientists. You must have a strange definition of "freely available". Being available only in a scientific journal with a several hundred dollar per year price tag doesn't meet most definitions of free. |
| montezuma Jan 09, 2008 6:05 AM EDT |
Its freely available to all other *scientists* that is the point in terms of how the scientific community operates. BTW if you are interested in a paper usually you can get it for free by contacting one of the authors by email. Also many journals have extensive free online access now. I agree with you however that as a general principle it should be available to everyone and many journals are now actually going open source urged on by people like myself. Example: http://bentham.org/open/a-z.htm |
| Bob_Robertson Jan 09, 2008 6:46 AM EDT |
One of the most pervasive fallacies is that of "continuous upward progress" through history. "Progress" is hardly continuous, or even always in the direction of increasing knowledge. There are periods of regression, advance, constant flux of both in different fields at the same time. The cloistering of knowledge has always been favored by those who benefit from such. This "University President" is no different than the Guild Master. Like the basement F/OSS writer, free access to information is what benefits those who are not "vested", i.e. "the rest of us." |
| jdixon Jan 09, 2008 6:51 AM EDT |
> Its freely available to all other *scientists*... Only because their employer pays the fees for the necessary journals. > ...if you are interested in a paper usually you can get it for free by contacting one of the authors by email. Probably true. > Also many journals have extensive free online access now. A fairly recent but welcome trend. I know there is an active group campaigning for more open access to scientific papers and research. |
| montezuma Jan 09, 2008 6:52 AM EDT |
> One of the most pervasive fallacies is that of "continuous upward progress" through history. Examples in the context of science would be nice. |
| montezuma Jan 09, 2008 6:54 AM EDT |
> Only because their employer pays the fees for the necessary journals. Yep true but that doesn't alter the point of the argument. |
| jdixon Jan 09, 2008 6:56 AM EDT |
> Examples in the context of science would be nice. Da Vinci invented the differential gear. It was lost for centuries until reinvented. That's technically engineering, not science, but... |
| montezuma Jan 09, 2008 7:00 AM EDT |
>Da Vinci invented the differential gear. It was lost for centuries until reinvented. That's technically engineering, not science, but... Actually it was possibly invented by the ancient Chinese: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pointing_Chariot but anyway.... |
| ColonelPanik Jan 09, 2008 8:49 AM EDT |
Everything is free. |
| Bob_Robertson Jan 09, 2008 9:09 AM EDT |
The steam engine was a toy used by the Greeks, along with their complex clock-work mechanisms. I recommend the Anticathera mechanism as a prime example. Archemides invented Calculus. The Romans used cement. I would also use an example the present tussle between "creation" and "evolution" in terms of the creation of new species, and it really doesn't matter which side of the argument you're personally on, since each side considers the other to be a regression of knowledge. |
| montezuma Jan 09, 2008 9:46 AM EDT |
Well Bob I think you have a valid point in that knowledge can be forgotten particularly when it is first created however I would contend that 1) Our present steam engines are vastly superior to those of the Greeks 2) Our use of cement is (in the main) vastly more sophisticated than that of the Romans 3) Newton and Leibniz not Archimedes formalized Calculus (they built on the Greeks btw). Archimedes used it intuitively. Today it is vastly more sophisticated and powerful (witness differential geometry) 4) I would rather not take on Creationism or its present day variant Intelligent Design as a scientific theory thanks. It has a very meager representation in the scientific literature so has not been subjected to proper validation. BTW I think string "theory" is in the same category. Anyway my point is that, in the main, there is tremendous progress on the rational knowledge front. I would question whether there is progress on the wisdom front however. Seems to me that emotional as opposed to rational wisdom goes backward pretty damned easily. |
| Bob_Robertson Jan 09, 2008 12:50 PM EDT |
Regardless of the "sophistication" of our present uses, the fact remains that the knowledge of these things, no matter how common (like concrete) was lost. The Pantheon was the largest open space building for 1200 years, built with a concrete dome. Recently there has been a great advance in knowledge and sophistication, I believe because of the open sharing of information combined with the inherent rigor of the scientific method. Such periods of regression are much easier to see in other disciplines, such as economics where the insights of the scholastics were lost for centuries, but even biology (as mentioned before) can be argued. As you point out, "wisdom" is something that is always in danger. |
| thenixedreport Jan 09, 2008 11:52 PM EDT |
For the one who said it was only a theory. I hate to break your heart. It is unfortunately true.... and yes, money does have quite a bit to do with it. Just ask yourself this: why is the U.S. alone using vehicles that are very fuel IN-efficient compared to other vehicles around the world? Why hasn't alternative fuels that are actually efficient become available, let alone widespread? Money. In the 1900s, there were once electric cars, which worked quite well. What happened to them? Why aren't they being manufactured enmasse? Money. Scott pointed it out himself. The ole' patent game. Also, think there aren't those in the scientific community who aren't elitist? Think again. It is also about control of ideas. That I submit is the real reason the individual in question does not like the philosophy of FOSS. If the philosophy of FOSS in which sharing of ideas and knowledge were more common and widespread, that would mean that individuals such as him could no longer control the information itself in his own way. One final note: Remember how the military always gets the higher forms of technology before civilians? Think about that one for a moment. |
| hkwint Jan 10, 2008 1:55 AM EDT |
Quoting:Patents are something else since they refer usually to the APPLICATION of science not to the basic research. That, my friend, is theory - at least when it comes to software patents. Just start reading software patents and you will see patents usually refer to the IDEA behind software, not to the basic application. However, they ought to describe - as you suggest the application, not the basic ideas, so in theory you're right. |
| thenixedreport Jan 10, 2008 2:26 AM EDT |
"you will see patents usually refer to the IDEA behind software" Hence why software patents are very frightening. |
| azerthoth Jan 10, 2008 3:45 AM EDT |
That actually is fine by me as it makes them less able to stand up to a court challenge. One of the tests as laid out by the patent office is that given the detials of the patent application someone who is conversant in that field must be able to replicate the end result. |
| Bob_Robertson Jan 10, 2008 4:18 AM EDT |
> Remember how the military always gets the higher forms of technology before civilians? Think about that one for a moment. Didn't used to be that way. Gen. Butler in the civil war bought a dozen Gattling Guns with his own money to outfit his troops, because the army wouldn't buy them for him. But yes, as leviathan has grown more basic research is done under their auspices, and it doesn't have to have a "civilian" purpose in order to get funded. I've got a very nice essay by a former SR-71 pilot around here somewhere if anyone is interested. "I pulled down the throttle over the Gulf of Sidra, but we still overshot our refueling point over Gibralter." Lots of that advanced technology is really just application in killing, something not a lot of people are going to buy outside of the military. Hummers not withstanding. A good civilian deer rifle is pretty much still the state-of-the-art sniper rifle. Sadly, the patent system has been corrupted. When bemoaning software patents, don't forget also "patents" on _business_models_. Business models? Yep. |
| montezuma Jan 10, 2008 5:20 AM EDT |
> Also, think there aren't those in the scientific community who aren't elitist? Of course there are and Lanier is a prime example and that's what made me angry enough to start this thread The reality is however that "information control" by secrecy is not how this elitism is maintained at least in the longer term. Generally it derives from the snobbish hierarchy of Universities. You know:Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, Penn State, Michigan State, UCSC, etc etc. "down" the line. |
| uknewbie Jan 10, 2008 6:24 AM EDT |
Re thenixedreport your attitude to "the science community" is distinctly odd for a number of reasons. You assign a unity of purpose and malignancy to scientists that does not exist. You understand that software is a diverse field, that multiple factions exist and compete with each other within it. You know that corporate interests in computing are not the face of the entire industry. If I burst out in dark insinuations of the moral bankruptcy and greed of "the software community" spurred on by Microsoft's latest scam you would say, "that's just Microsoft they are not the entire software industry". You are not extending the same courtesy to scientists. Big oil and big pharma are to science what Microsoft is to computing. large corporate interests with axes to grind all cut out of a similar mold. oil dependence is a problem exacerbated by inertia, habit, network effects, heavy investments in obsolete infrastructure which PHBs are reluctant to scrap etc. I wonder where we could find a similarly obsoleted technology hanging onto dominance for similar reasons..... It no more requires a conspiracy of scientists hushing up new technology to explain oils dominance than it requires a similar conspiracy on behalf of IT professionals to explain Microsoft's. Besides which you are accusing some unknown scientists of sitting on secrets which could earn them money and influence on the scale of bill gates, just to feel smug and superior. That requires certifiable insanity not simple elitism. as for your point about some scientists being elitist so are some programmers heck so are some bus drivers. nasty smug (insert expletive of choice) are a universal phenomenon. |
| hkwint Jan 10, 2008 8:18 AM EDT |
Quoting:You understand that software (like universities - hk) is a diverse field I think I just identified one of the reasons of this 'misunderstanding': Since 2003, there is the Berlin Declaration, which is a bit to science as what the GPL is to software; officialy being called "Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities". As of today, 240 institutes / universities / societies etc. have signed this declaration; http://oa.mpg.de/openaccess-berlin/signatories.html the German ones were first, than followed by a lot from Spain, Belgium, almost all of them from Italy, most of the ones in the Netherlands and some from other countries. What misses in the signatory list however, are the US institutus / universities - except from someone especially profiling themselves as open. I don't know if they have their own open access declaration, I guess not. The incentive to turn knowledge to money is far greater in the US as far as I know, since the institutes / universities receive less funding from the government and more from corporate business than is usual in the EU. Therefore, it is possible someone from the US has a different view of universities, the elite and snobs than someone in the EU, like probably UKNewbie above (if the name references to the UK, guess it does) and myself. However, that's shifting in my country; universities are encouraged to search more funds from corporate business in order to need less money from the state, and universities are encouraged to build what's known as a 'patent portfolio', basically a monopoly to (the use of) certain knowledge. |
| uknewbie Jan 10, 2008 11:57 AM EDT |
Well between a biology degree a subscription to new scientist magazine an active imagination and far far to much time on the net I have picked up a list of obscure interests and even more obscure pet hates longer than my arm. A small representative sample of statements and memes. Guaranteed to raise my blood pressure: Religion and science are opposing principles which must fight the other until one or other is victorious Creationism is real science the free market solves absolutely everything We should all support Microsoft because it represents real American values (particularly if the person spouting this seems to think it should convince non USA residents to buy their argument) “The scientists” are hiding the /cure to cancer/secret of eternal life/working cold fusion reactor/etc./ under their hats because of some mysterious dark plot to make them rich and powerful. I was feeling particularly twitchy over the last one, because I have recently had a long conversation with someone who believed that “them doctors and scientists”, had either made up cancer or where exaggerating its occurrence by at least a factor of ten. All in order to squeeze money out of the government. Thenixedreport's theories where too close to this idea/ meme for comfort first the concept of “the scientific community” as a cohesive malevolent group, then the idea of deep dark secrets then the proposed motivation for a worldwide conspiracy, far smaller than the effort required to maintain it. The idea of all of the top brains in a given field getting together and agreeing to hide some significant new technology is laughable. Roughly equivalent in difficulty to getting the top ten operating system programmers from Microsoft BSD and Linux to plot some unified plan of equal significance and then keep it secret. Getting scientists from a wide variety of fields to manage the same degree of organization and secrecy becomes exponentially more difficult the more people are in on the secret. I could go on but I will only start ranting again.... |
| Bob_Robertson Jan 10, 2008 12:10 PM EDT |
> the free market solves absolutely everything Hahahaha, even as a rabid anarcho-capitalist I have the sense to point out that people solve problems, if allowed to do so. The free market is simply what happens when people are not restrained. I don't think the "answer to everything" is out there being held back, the power elite aren't smart enough to do that. But the electric car _is_ being repressed, thermal depolymerization is being actively crushed. Nuclear power has been regulated into irrelevance in the US (to protect petroleum?), and even the company building nano-solar super efficient solar panels today is being manipulated such that they are not offering their products for retail sale at any price. It doesn't take a grand conspiracy, just wealthy companies lobbying their "representatives" for special treatment. Microsoft is no different. As soon as the prosecutions began, the Gates law-firm bought into an established lobbying firm in DC and Gates and Co. started making campaign contributions which they had not done before. It worked, and even today regardless of MS's performance in court, their products are still being bought in large quantities by the same government that took them to court for "monopoly" practices. Edit: Oooh! I found a couple of very interesting conspiracy theory / repressed technology articles that are lots of fun, and have lots of links to things like compressed-air powered cars that go 90kph for 100km on a charge, etc. http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2007/tle449-20071230-06.html http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2007/tle449-20071230-02.html Oh, and a picture of Lexa Doig, of which there cannot be too many pictures. |
| montezuma Jan 10, 2008 1:11 PM EDT |
>However, that's shifting in my country; universities are encouraged to search more funds from corporate business in order to need less money from the state, and universities are encouraged to build what's known as a 'patent portfolio', basically a monopoly to (the use of) certain knowledge. Hans, Yeah I had a chat to an idiot at my University about patents. What a joke. He had no real clue how science works in my area. The biggest parasites in that area are in medical research in my experience, most particularly those connected with the Morningside Heights Mafia (Columbia University) to quote Tony Soprano (In case you missed the Sopranos in Holland it is a Mob based comedy/drama). What little I have had to do with this commercialization thing makes me think that in most areas it is posturing by management idiots. |
| ColonelPanik Jan 10, 2008 1:33 PM EDT |
Open Source is giving. Everything else is taking. |
| uknewbie Jan 10, 2008 1:53 PM EDT |
Quoting:It doesn't take a grand conspiracy, just wealthy companies lobbying their "representatives" for special treatment. Microsoft is no different.Half a page of my pretentious blather summarized in 2 lines. I really should take something for this verbal diarrhea. |
| hkwint Jan 10, 2008 3:34 PM EDT |
Quoting:the biggest parasites in that area are in medical research in my experience Sad to hear. I'm one of those dependent on medicines, and the one which might really help will probably not be given to me soon, because it's too expensive to just let everybody try it. Part of it is because of the patents. I'm not that familiar with pharma-patents however, so it's hard for me to say anything about it - apart from knowing these companies are very rich. However, I'm a tiny bit familiar with software patents, and at this moment, the pharma-industry is blocking the Patent Reform Act - which even Microsoft wants - I understood. It's a tough dilemma, when it comes to software patents I am not in favour of patents, but I can understand the pharma industry wants to keep it this way. They invest more money before a patent is filed than in the software industry. Apple just filed a patent to dock a laptop in a screen, and to me it seems that's just a patentet idea, which didn't really cost lot of bucks to 'research'. Also, the Microsoft "doubleclick" or "sudo" patents come to mind. A patent should be an incentive to do research, but at the moment it is a reason to be conservative and afraid when it comes to software development. [quote]In case you missed the Sopranos in Holland[quote] Don't worry, it was broadcasted here too, and though I didn't see it, I heard of it. |
| montezuma Jan 10, 2008 6:46 PM EDT |
Hans, The argument is always that patents are needed to encourage investment but at some point that is just an excuse for maintaining a cash supply. Perhaps in that area some compromise where patents expire after a sane, fixed amount of time so companies are rewarded for investment but then people who are poor are not screwed. More info on Columbia here: [url=http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:iZ3pHftFbKMJ:chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i13/13a02701.htm Columbia extends patents&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a]http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:iZ3pHftFbKMJ:chronicle.c...[/url] |
| Bob_Robertson Jan 11, 2008 5:23 AM EDT |
> Perhaps in that area some compromise where patents expire after a sane, fixed amount of time so companies are rewarded for investment but then people who are poor are not screwed. That was, actually, the argument for installing the patent system in the first place. 7 years, unless you specifically reapplied, for which you got another 7. ...Or was that copyright? Oh well, it was the same argument for both. "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" |
| montezuma Jan 11, 2008 5:48 AM EDT |
Bob, Correct but the link I cited shows that the system in the US has been abused by the likes of Columbia and is badly broken. Personally I think a five year non-renewable term would be about right for drug patents. |
| Bob_Robertson Jan 11, 2008 6:20 AM EDT |
> but the link I cited shows that the system in the US has been abused by the likes of Columbia and is badly broken. Good sir, please don't get me started. There's No Such Thing As a Free Patent By N. Stephan Kinsella http://www.mises.org/story/1763 ...oh well, you did get me started. > Personally I think a five year non-renewable term would be about right for drug patents. And personally, I'd like to throw the whole government granted monopoly mind-set out. Merchantilism is a negative sum process, even though it benefits a few with great rewards. But then benefiting the few at the expense of the many is the purpose, cleverly disguised in rhetoric. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!