Michael Nielsen » The Future of Science

21Sep09

Cet article du physicien Michael Nielsen sur son blog n’a été marqué que 2 fois sur delicious et 3 fois sur diigo. Il a pourtant produit 21 pages de commentaires. Est-ce une illustration de l’inadéquation des outils généralistes aux échanges scientifiques?

Extraits sur diigo:

• Michael Nielsen » The Future of Science

  tags: science_2.0, scholarly_communication

  • when Robert Hooke discovered his law in 1676, he published it as an anagram, “ceiiinossssttuv”, which he revealed two years later as the Latin “ut tensio, sic vis”, meaning “as the extension, so the force”. This ensured that if someone else made the same discovery, Hooke could reveal the anagram and claim priority, thus buying time in which he alone could build upon the discovery.
  • “Work. Finish. Publish.”
  • In 1999, Garry Kasparov, the greatest chessplayer of all time, played and eventually won a game of chess against a “World Team” which decided its moves by the votes of thousands of chessplayers, many rank amateurs; instead of the easy victory he expected, he got the most challenging game of his career, a game he called “the greatest game in the history of chess”.
  • The adoption of the journal system was achieved by subsidizing scientists who published their discoveries in journals. This same subsidy now inhibits the adoption of more effective technologies, because it continues to incentivize scientists to share their work in conventional journals, and not in more modern media.
  • Einstein’s greatest contribution to science was his theory of gravity, often called the general theory of relativity. He worked on and off on this theory between 1907 and 1915, often running into great difficulties. By 1912, he had come to the astonishing conclusion that our ordinary conception of geometry, in which the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees, is only approximately correct, and a new kind of geometry is needed to correctly describe space and time. This was a great surprise to Einstein, and also a great challenge, since such geometric ideas were outside his expertise. Fortunately for Einstein and for posterity, he described his difficulties to a mathematician friend, Marcel Grossman. Grossman said that many of the ideas Einstein needed had already been developed by the mathematician Bernhard Riemann. It took Einstein three more years of work, but Grossman was right, and this was a critical point in the development of general relativity.
  • In April 2008, Cameron Neylon, a chemist from the University of Southampton, used FriendFeed messaging to post a request for assistance in building molecular models. Pretty quickly Pawel Szczesny replied, and said he could help out.
  • How could you measure the different sorts of contributions a scientist can make on a blog – outreach, education, and research? These are not easy questions to answer. Yet they must be answered before scientific blogging will be accepted as a valuable professional scientific contribution.
  • making many more types of content available than just scientific papers; allowing creative reuse and modification of existing work through more open licensing and community norms; making all information not just human readable but also machine readable; providing open APIs to enable the building of additional services on top of the scientific literature, and possibly even multiple layers of increasingly powerful services.
  • Wikipedia is a second example where scientists have missed an opportunity to innovate online.
  • Nature’s 2006 trial of open commentary on papers undergoing peer review at Nature. The trial was not a success.
  • The contrast between the science comment sites and the success of the amazon.com reviews is stark.

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Filed under: communication scientifique, open access, web_2.0   |  Leave a Comment
Étiquettes : Science_2.0