From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 06:47:30 +0800
To: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Subject: Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality
In-Reply-To: <v03102802b0ddc3eab7fa@[207.167.93.63]>
Message-ID: <199801122244.OAA23868@netcom12.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



the original claim, which I don't really care much and find pretty
obvious, such that I am not really even all that interested in
debating the point except for amusement, was that

"science advances only through the open literature"

its a tautology in a sense that I was referring to collaborative
science, not private experiments. science in its most powerful
form, that in service to humanity, is of course not this type,
although I wouldn't be surprised if a antisocial anarchist
for example confused the two either deliberately or through
a characteristically muddled mind.

>Doesn't matter how the establishment (whatever that might be) looked on him
>or not...

well, the original  point was about "establishment science"..

>My main point has been to refute your notion that any one who elects not to
>publish in the open literature cannot be a scientist. I know of many
>scientists who could not publish, or chose not to for various reasons.

ah yes, scientists in their own mind, like that saying, "a legend in
his own mind"

>I mentioned the Manhattan Project scientists. (Choate made some bizarre
>claim after this mention that all of the science was known in the 20 and
>30s, and that no actual science was done by MP "engineers" and
>"technicians." Might be a surprise to Ulam, Teller, von Neumann, and all
>the others who worked in secrecy on the atom bomb, then the hydrogen bomb,
>and so on.)

it was science that was of borderline benefit to humanity, which was
exactly my initial point. how much has the atom bomb served humanity?
perhaps such abominations of technology require secrecy, no?

>The point being that open publication is only a part of the methodology of
>doing science, and a fairly recent one, too.

no, it has been considered the key ingredient of modern science since its
inception. concepts of publication and
proper attribution for example have been around for centuries.

>--Tim May and his Tentacles

call me a sentimental fool but just love it when they 
waggle suggestively like that!!