Wirt Atmar writes: ". . . opinions . . . of=20 authoritative approval seems still eminently=20 requisite."* Thanks to him for the links.
Should any scientist give a damn about any=20 opinion, authoritative or otherwise? Isn't the=20 crux of science to provide an antidote for mere=20 opinion? Even (especially) that of Eminent=20 Authorities? Of course, I fear I may be treading=20 too close to the marrow here, so keep the=20 mortarboards and the pretty colors on black=20 cloaks and just stick producing the antidote in=20 increasingly potent remedies for "ignorance in action." WT PS: As to the book, sounds like a long-winded=20 generic whiner-potboiler to me . . . The very=20 point that so many have made here so much better=20 than I is that given open exposure, the real=20 cream will rise to the top, whilst the heavier=20 and heavier brown stuff will sink, at long last,=20 to the bottom, regardless of length. It seems=20 that the point of Foley and others is that given=20 open exposure, fraudulent as well as elegant=20 science and other products of honest intellectual=20 exploration will suffer or gain from that=20 exposure. It's nothing new that the Internet is=20 flooded with all kinds of misleading bazz-fazz,=20 but that very phenomenon should lead to healthy=20 skepticism rather than Authority-worship, and=20 that will "make all the difference." *Nothing said here is intended to relate to any=20 particular person, living or dead; these remarks=20 are intended to stand the test of relevance to issues, not personalities. At 02:44 PM 5/22/2007, Wirt Atmar wrote: >Bill Silvert writes: > > > I think that Patrick Foley has the right idea=20 > - let's just put our ideas out > > there for everone to criticise. > >This is an important topic, and it's not one=20 >just debated in ecological circles. >Every scientific and technical discipline is repeating the debate. In that >regard, let me offer three opinions somewhat contrary to Bill's and= Patrick's. >The first comes from Charles Cooper, editor of=20 >C|Net, an on-line technical site >for computer professionals in the Bay Area. Cooper wrote just a month ago: > >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > >Web 2.0--the folly of amateurs? > >By Charles Cooper >http://news.com.com/Web+2.0-the+folly+of+amateurs/2010-1025_3-6173903.html > >Story last modified Fri Apr 06 05:21:42 PDT 2007 > >Andrew Keen doesn't fit the profile of your garden-variety bomb thrower.= But >make no mistake about this erudite British-born entrepreneur: He is out to >rattle Silicon Valley and the geekerati by detonating many of the= comfortable >myths attending the Web 2.0 era. > >In a deliciously subversive new book, "The Cult=20 >of the Amateur," which debuts in >June, Keen recounts the many ways in which technology is remaking our= culture >and society... > >The subtitle of his book states his thesis=20 >bluntly: "How the democratization of >the digital world is assaulting our economy, our culture, and our values." > >Keen bemoans the advent of "an endless digital forest of mediocrity" as the >number of new blogs doubles each six months.=20 >Them be fighting words, to be sure, >and Keen is being purposely provocative. But he's worth reading. Keen's not >writing from the uninformed point of view of a technophobe. In his previous >life, he was the founder of Audiocafe.com. That said, he's not at all happy >about where things are headed, bemoaning the advent of "an endless digital >forest of mediocrity" as the number of new blogs=20 >doubles each six months. Here's >a typical snippet: > >"If we keep up this pace, there will be over=20 >five hundred million blogs by 2010, >collectively corrupting and confusing popular opinion about everything from >politics, to commerce, to arts and culture [and=20 >especially science]. Blogs have >become so dizzyingly infinite, that they've=20 >undermined our sense of what is true >and what is false, what is real and what is imaginary. These days, kids= can't >tell the difference between credible news by=20 >objective professional journalists >and what they read on joeshmoe.blogspot.com." > >Keen finds little to celebrate in the rising cult of the amateur. Same for= the >emerging age of citizen journalism, and he frets=20 >about the growing influence of >short-form bloggers at the expense of the wisdom=20 >of long-form essays of scholars >and experts. He worries about the wisdom-of-the-crowd phenomena represented= by >the likes of Wikipedia or YouTube and the impact=20 >they're having on an ADD-prone >generation that embraces editor-free news sites.=20 >Technology is our friend? Don't >kid yourself, is Keen's response. The crowd has often proved itself to be >anything but wise. We may have strong opinions but so many of us remain >uninformed. > >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > >The second opinion comes from Matt Cartmill of the Duke's Biological >Anthropology Department. Before reading the article below I only knew= Cartmill >by this quote of his, which is one of my favorites: > >"As an adolescent I aspired to lasting fame, I craved factual certainty,= and I >thirsted for a meaningful vision of human life - so I became a scientist.= This >is like becoming an archbishop so you can meet girls." > >Cartmill's father is famous among science-fiction devotees, and he talks= about >not only that fame but the subject at hand in a=20 >"View on Science" note he wrote >in the American Journal of Physical Anthropolgy seven years ago. The full= text >of his note is at: > >http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/73500863/PDFSTART > >I've copied the most relevant parts of his note here: > >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > >Twenty years ago, the only way to secure a=20 >worldwide audience for a new idea or >discovery was to get it into a prestigious international journal. Nowadays, >anyone who knows how to set up a Web site can secure a worldwide audience= in a >few hours. And an on-line journal is just another Web site. The potential >audience for an article in Nature on line is exactly the same as that for= an >article posted on the Web by the kid down the=20 >block =97 namely, anyone, anywhere, >any time, who wants to read it. The kid down the block may even have a few >advantages over the Nature Publishing Group: he can track new trends and >technologies more rapidly, and people can read his stuff for free. > >The 21st century is going to be the golden age of samizdat =97= self-publication. >We ought to welcome this development. It makes=20 >more sense to circulate ideas by >pushing electrons than by moving millions of tons of paper around. And the >democratization of discourse that the Internet=20 >makes possible is a good thing in >itself, at least in principle. But the new regime also poses some big= problems >for science and education. For one thing, the Internet makes it possible= for >holders of any minority opinion to attain critical mass by pulling= themselves >together into a worldwide virtual community. The result is likely to be an >unending fragmentation of once-shared concerns=20 >and consensuses. (This process is >evident today on the World Wide Web, where sites=20 >devoted to wild-eyed conspiracy >theories, loony alternative therapies, and weird=20 >sexual idiosyncracies multiply >and diversify with dizzying speed.) This sort of fragmentation is bound to >strengthen the centrifugal forces that work to partition science into >specializations of infinitely narrowing focus.=20 >Before 2100, we may find the AAPA >broken up into a meteoric swarm of tiny bits, each with its own= idiosyncratic >agenda, theories, Web site, on-line journal, and virtual annual meeting.= The >recent history of the American Anthropological=20 >Association gives us some idea of >where this process might lead. > >Another big problem is that the Internet=20 >bypasses all the traditional mechanisms >of quality control. In the past, readers could feel fairly confident that >scientific ideas and claims that made it into the worldwide distribution >networks had passed through a stringent review, which could be counted on= to >detect and throw out defective items. Now we=20 >have to deal with the kid down the >block, who can reach an indefinitely large audience with an on-line journal >purveying any sort of craziness he favors. This is a whole new ballgame, in >which Web users have no umpires =97 no=20 >institutionalized structures of authority =97 >to help them tell line drives from foul balls. > >Authority is becoming an increasingly rare and=20 >valuable commodity, and it is one >of the few things that a scientific society like the AAPA has to sell. For >seventy years, our Association has served the=20 >discipline ofphysical anthropology >by assuring that there would be a widely read journal of high quality that >covered all aspects of our science, and by=20 >sponsoring an annual meeting at which >physical anthropologists could come together to get to know each other and >exchange ideas. But the Internet is becoming an environment in which these >services could be carried out in other ways =97 for example, by= establishing Web >sites on which articles and posters can be displayed for free general= access, >linked to electronic bulletin boards or chat groups for discussion and >evaluation. In this new environment, the student needs some means of >distinguishing meritorious claims, which have=20 >passed these sorts of trials, from >baseless fancies and obsessions hung out on the Web by cliques of= enthusiasts. >No builder of Web sites or publisher of journals can provide this sort of >warrant. It takes a community of scientists to establish and maintain the >structures of authority in their discipline. We need to think about= building >some new ones for physical anthropology =97 and=20 >about what we would like to get in >exchange. > >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > >Finally, the third opinion comes in the form of=20 >new requirements for publishing >on ArXiv (pronounced "archive"; the "X" is the Greek letter Chi), a= preprint >server for physicists, astronomers and astrophysicists. > >Physicists are a much smaller community than=20 >biologists, or even a subgroup such >as ecologists. Long before the advent of the internet, it was their habit= to >pass around mimeographed copies of their papers=20 >before they were even submitted >to journals, and they were often referenced in that form. > >With the arrival of the internet, one physicist at Los Alamos, on his own >initiative, set up a small server under his desk to perform the same= service. >Ultimately, that server came to be so important to the community that the >server's contents were duplicated at a half=20 >dozen mirror sites around the world >and the project was begun to be financed by NSF and DOE. It's now run out= of >permanently staffed office at Cornell: > >http://arxiv.org/ > >and it has extended its range of subjects a bit. > >Virtually everything that's published in these fields is also made= available >here first, at no charge. The same papers appear in archived journals= later, >with all of their access fees and page charges, but both mechanisms play an >important role. One provides open access. The other quality assurance. > >Originally, anyone could upload anything on the preprint server, but when= its >presence was discovered by the kooks, cranks and loonies of the world, the >governing board found that they too had to=20 >institute a form of peer-review a few >years ago. The papers submitted now aren't read or reviewed for content or >quality, but they do have to be either written by someone who has been= deemed >authoritative or endorsed by such a person before they can be uploaded now: > >http://arxiv.org/help/endorsement > >For older documents, a separate process exists.=20 >NASA and the Harvard-Smithsonian >Center for Astrophysics have teamed together to scan in every paper written= in >essentially every journal prior to 1995-2006 (dependent on the agreements= with >the various journals), as you can see in their list of holdings here: > >http://adsabs.harvard.edu/journals_service.html > >If you're an astronomer or astrophysicist, there is no reason for you to= ever >step foot in a library ever again. All of the astronomical literature is= now >on-line, searchable and freely accessible to=20 >anyone, regardless of where in the >world you are, and it obviously represents a tremendous resource. > >This is of course all that any of us want for ecology as well. But, as the >opinions above express, some sense of authoritative approval seems still >eminently requisite. > >Wirt Atmar
