[hackerspaces-theory] ping

[Jo Walsh]

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
>right)
>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 
>article.
>_______________________________________________
>Theory mailing list
>Theory at lists.hackerspaces.org
>http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/theory

-- 
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>