> > And I can’t really come up with some compelling evidence to convince this > person he is (completely) wrong.
I think it's less important to read a piece like this as about specifics, and more important to read it as being about where the messaging and practice of 'open science' goes wrong. I wrote a similar-ish piece on my blog a few months ago, and I had a lot of in-person discussions about it. What came up over and over again is (paraphrasing) "I feel like I'm never doing enough to make my work open" or "I think I do good work in the open, but I can't keep track of all the new apps and stuff." That leads to burn-out; that leads to people not trying anymore. I see open science and reproducibility as 'each to their ability' propositions, and I try to be honest about that in my communications on that front. If there is no one in the lab, or locally who can instruct novices on how to use git *efficiently, *then individuals can hardly be blamed for looking for some other solution. I think this piece also highlights why efforts like Data Carpentry are important, since every field has it's own quirks, and research-active instructors can help point the way forward in their specific community. April --------- Postdoctoral Researcher Iowa State University, EEOB University of Kansas, EEB 251 Bessey Hall Ames, IA 50011 512.940.5761 http://wrightaprilm.github.io/ <http://wrightaprilm.github.io/pages/about_me.html> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Karin Lagesen <[email protected]> wrote: > On 29.02.2016 16:24, Lex Nederbragt wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> This blog post: >> http://rajlaboratory.blogspot.no/2016/02/from-reproducibility-to-over.html >> seems like a perfect example of how many people will think. And I >> can’t really come up with some compelling evidence to convince this >> person he is (completely) wrong. >> >> On the plus side, they are very aware of the issues and are doing >> things a lot better than many others... >> > > Regarding git, they are forgetting the main reason I use it for my stuff, > and that's to save myself from the random typo. It is so easy to > accidentally introduce something that is a logical change which may change > the conditions under which you are running your analysis. With version > control, I am able to see all changes, and hence I can actually _catch_ > stuff like this. > > Karin > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org
