Sorry, still not convinced!
Your example is too narrow/simplistic, and doesn't capture the actual process of how scientific knowledge advances. Science does NOT happen with a simple, "scientist#1 publishes paper; scientist#2 reproduces". that is only a small part. You state: "It was no slower than replications today, because researchers do not work any faster." If you ONLY look at the later part of the process, namely, dissemination of your results and reproduction attempts, then that might be a valid statement. however, that is only a part of the process. Let's take you example of Franklin publishing a new experiment and that experiment being replicated. according to your estimate, that process alone would have taken at least 3 to 4 months; I think that is way too short an estimate for these reasons: - How did Franklin come up with this new experiment??? How long has he been thinking about it, and how many colleagues did he discuss his ideas with to refine his thinking and even conceive of the new experiment??? Just sending a letter from Boston to Virginia (500 miles) to run his ideas past Jefferson would have taken two weeks there and two weeks back. how many letters went back and forth before Franklin's thinking had vetted the idea sufficiently and he feels ready to perform the new experiment??? (1 to 6 months?) - So now he performs the experiment and something doesn't go right; he doesn't get the expected result. He sends another letter to colleagues to discuss possible reasons why the experiment failed. They send their suggestions back to Boston. - Franklin eventually refines the experiment, repeats it a few times, and gets consistent results that he feels are rigorous, and now wants to publish. Now we have another process to go thru in order to publish: - he takes a week or two to write it up and sends it to the editor in England (6 weeks) - the editor then sends copies to peers who have the expertise to critique the paper (days (if local) to weeks) - the reviewers send their comments/criticisms/recommendations back to the editor (days to weeks) - the editor sends the suggestions/criticisms back to Franklin; he revises his paper; sends it back to the editor (2 to 3 months) - editor has some discretion as to whether another review is necessary, or the revised paper deals with all the criticisms adequately - paper gets published and disseminated - people try to replicate; damn, my replication didn't work, so I write a letter to Franklin explaining how I did it and can he see what I may have done wrong (another 3 months). What if I need to obtain some chemicals or other supplies which come from far away? - .you get the idea. How long the process took depends on two things: - The distance between you and your colleagues, and the publisher and reviewing scientists; - the time required for conveying information across distances Bottom line, in Franklin's time, the complete process of how a scientist thinks of an idea, runs it past colleagues, refines it, publishes it, others attempt reproduction and communication of those results, could easily take a year or more; less if the colleagues are all within a few hundred miles. For Franklin to go thru this entire process today might take a few weeks; two months at most. Today, distance is no longer an issue since dissemination of information and data are nearly instantaneous. And after further thought, I don't know if you can even make a comparison. the experiments in Franklin's time only needed some bottles, string, a metal object and a kite. today we have to build superconducting magnets and underground tunnels 17 miles in circumference! J How does one compare then to now? -Mark From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 11:35 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots MarkI-ZeroPoint <[email protected]> wrote: - Until the advent of the telegraph and radio, the spread of knowledge was EXTREMELY SLOW. Communications across the Atlantic took months, so two scientists debating their ideas on theories, or two engineers discussing the design of a dam, consumed YEARS of time; now it happens in SECONDS! Discussions took time, but the flow of information was faster than you might think. There was 6-week latency. When Franklin published new experiments on electricity, for example, news crossed the Atlantic in about 6 weeks and the experiments were replicated within months. It was no slower than replications today, because researchers do not work any faster. - Jed
