[hackerspaces-theory] ping

Jo Walsh metazool at gmail.com
Sun Dec 9 00:47:18 CET 2012

Bollocks. There's no such thing as real science. There's only natural history. 

For reference management worth looking at openbiblio.net and other projects of the Open Bibliography group of the Open Knowledge Management. For a modern perspective on academic data sharing. Journals are 18th century technology run by a cartel, and plugging into that system ain't going to help it.

quemener.yves at free.fr wrote:

>> From: "maxigas" <maxigas at anargeek.net>
>> i think for most hackers/hackerspace participants it is too much
>> hassle to engage with formal science, which is deemed simply too slow
>> and top-down.  you know the joke that "real programmers don't write
>> documentation".  i would be happy if more of the cool stuff which
>> people make in hackerspaces would be at least documented. :)
>Well, I am of the opinion, like many open source developers and people
>I met in hackerspaces, that a project is useless, unless it can be
>easily reproduced in another place. That usually means to have a 
>correct documentation. 
>One of the first question, when a cool video is posted, is : where is
>the source code? What chip/engine/batteries/display are you using? How
>did you wire that thing? The open source/hacker community do not have
>clear commitees to accept a project as interesting, but some emergent
>criterions appeared, and the ability to make the same thing at your 
>place is a crucial one.
>> De: "maxigas" <maxigas at anargeek.net>
>> when i wrote my first proposal for my phd, several people commented
>> that what hackerspaces do is not "science", so i can't interpret it
>> as a science going against some basic tenets of mainstream science.
>> :)
>Well it is true : what hackerspaces do is not science, and the tenets
>opposed by "mainstream science" are actually very good. Typically,
>hacking projects are just fun things you want to do. That is ok, you
>don't HAVE to do science. But _some_ projects do follow the basic 
>steps of science research : 
>- find existing projects that come close to what you need
>- try several solution, examine them objectively
>- choose a final solution, make some tests
>- propose new projects that can be based on yours.
>Thing is, today, you get hackers cred by making a cool video, a funny
>articles and by putting some basic technical informations. Most people
>see a bibliography and description of the state of the art as boring 
>parts that few people would read if you put it first (and they are
>If there was an incentive to use such a format however, I think that 
>several projects could document their work as a scientific article and
>be recognized as real science. 
>And all projects documentation do not suck, a lot of the things on 
>Instructables are actually very detailled. I think that the main thing
>missing is a references list, and the typical structure of a science 
>Theory mailing list
>Theory at lists.hackerspaces.org

Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.hackerspaces.org/pipermail/theory/attachments/20121208/4f2e8f1c/attachment.html>

More information about the Theory mailing list