Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality

Vladerusky:

Your original post brought up several separate aspects which can be
considered separately and may not necessarily coexist in the same place at
the same time:

1)  secrecy
2)  responsibility for publishing
3)  working for the government at the expense of unwilling payors
4)  the motivations of "true scientists"
5)  the requirements for the advancement of science
6)  the need of science for the works of great minds

Initially your argument had to do with secrecy and the need for scientists
to publish their work so that the scientific community may benefit from it.
  I can't disagree that if a scientist is working for the public, that they
should make their work publically available to them, since, after all, they
are supposedly working for the public benefit.

But you also said that "a key aspect of SCIENCE is publishing".    I was
only pointing out that, in the context of those who are working for their
own purposes and not under the employment of a government agency, some
scientists are not overly concerned about contributing to this advancement,
as can be observed by their reluctance to publish (even if they eventually
do, "under the extreme pressure of friends", for instance).

It may be your conclusion that the advancement of science depends upon
scientists publishing their works, but the fact is that some great
scientists, and many others as well, are not as motivated to contribute as
you think is proper for a "true scientist".

I think you should distinguish between those scientistis who have joined
some kind of "scientific community" and have established an obligation to
share the results of their work with that group, and those scientists who
are what they are, and do what they do, from motivations unrelated to such
communities.
    ..
Blanc

Blanc <blancw@cnw.com> writes:
> Initially your argument had to do with secrecy and the need for scientists
> to publish their work so that the scientific community may benefit from it.

Not just the scientific community... everyone. If an art critic declines
to publish something, its a loss probably only to his fellow art critics,
but if a mathematician or a biologist or a physicist doesn't publish, it's
a loss for more than just his colleagues.

>   I can't disagree that if a scientist is working for the public, that they
> should make their work publically available to them, since, after all, they
> are supposedly working for the public benefit.

I assume most of the research results from NIH or NIMH are publicly
available.  Unfortunatey, none of the stuff done at NSA gets published.
Of course NSA today is nothing like the NSA in the past. We're not
missing much by not seeing whatever inept drivel is produced by
Clinton's affirmativr action appointees.  Phooey.

> But you also said that "a key aspect of SCIENCE is publishing".    I was
> only pointing out that, in the context of those who are working for their
> own purposes and not under the employment of a government agency, some
> scientists are not overly concerned about contributing to this advancement,
> as can be observed by their reluctance to publish (even if they eventually
> do, "under the extreme pressure of friends", for instance).

Perhaps they would publish if there were an economic incentive to.

> I think you should distinguish between those scientistis who have joined
> some kind of "scientific community" and have established an obligation to
> share the results of their work with that group, and those scientists who
> are what they are, and do what they do, from motivations unrelated to such
> communities.

Instead of thinking in terms obligations, think of economic incentives.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

bw does a good job of separating out a few memes for discussion;

>Initially your argument had to do with secrecy and the need for scientists
>to publish their work so that the scientific community may benefit from it.

I was not talking so much about a need, but a duty as a scientist. I
was talking about other *duties* of responsible scientists. it is 
interesting that physicians have a Hippocratic oath, but do scientists
have an oath? there are informal ideas and taboos that circulate
I think should be codified. I suggest some that involve secrecy
and the use of moral principles in the pursuit of science.

something most anarchists here will deny is the existence of something
that could be called *immoral science*. is there such a thing? I find
it trivial to see that there is. but perhaps someone that is opposed
to morality, or is a moral relativist, or has a muddled mind, or
whatever, will reject anything that uses the word "moral". in fact
you might even start a flamewar among such people for using such
a word like a red flag in front of a bull, a deliciously juicy
and delectable flamewar at that!!

>But you also said that "a key aspect of SCIENCE is publishing".    I was
>only pointing out that, in the context of those who are working for their
>own purposes and not under the employment of a government agency, some
>scientists are not overly concerned about contributing to this advancement,
>as can be observed by their reluctance to publish (even if they eventually
>do, "under the extreme pressure of friends", for instance).

absolutely, and perhaps this secrecy is a useful atmosphere for 
abominations to flourish. has anyone asked why it is that people
in our war factories (and they are vast, make no mistake) make
weapons merely because they are *feasible*?? who is it that
uses such a feeble, dark, deluded worldview to navigate the world?
answer: many thousands of people being paid handsome salaries by
your tax money extracted every week from your paycheck. many people
who consider themselves the elite intellectuals of humanity. many
people who have made an art of making themselves unaccountable to
government oversight with the easy help of  the indifferent, lazy,
and apathetic masses.

>It may be your conclusion that the advancement of science depends upon
>scientists publishing their works, but the fact is that some great
>scientists, and many others as well, are not as motivated to contribute as
>you think is proper for a "true scientist".

it is not my own conclusion. it is a simple truth that would be considered
obvious by most scientific authorities.

>I think you should distinguish between those scientistis who have joined
>some kind of "scientific community" and have established an obligation to
>share the results of their work with that group, and those scientists who
>are what they are, and do what they do, from motivations unrelated to such
>communities.

fair enough. those scientists that are being paid with taxpayer money.
and they are littered all over secret government agencies, sucking
up money like black vacuums, while they create irrelevant,
distracting diversions and decoys for the population to wail about
such as welfare, social security, etc.  perhaps there might be enough
money to go around if so much of it wasn't being encased in the
steel frames of the most technological weaponry-- killing
technology far more efficient than the ovens of Auschvitz-- ever in existence.
now being perfected with the help of your paycheck taxes..... gosh,
why would anyone care about any of this? to all the newbies on this
list-- I warn you-- the rumors are all true, I really AM INSANE!!
BWAHAHAHHAHAHA