Alexandre Enkerli's Library tagged Suber →  View Popular, Search in Google

Agreed. So, why is it so rarely discussed or grokked?

Neat, clean, simple, straightforward... convincing. Framing it as hypothesis works well, in context.

Almost lingo-like but resonates well with academic terminology.

Almost like "talking to scientists' emotions." In an efficient way.

Don't we all wish this were more widely understood?

There's an important social concept, here. Related to humility as a function of human interaction.

underline

underline

Tying humility, intellectual honesty, critical thinking, ego-lessness, and even relativist ways of knowing.

underline

Perhaps my favourite argument ever for not only OA but for changes in academia generally.

Possible tie-in with the social level of cognition. Or the usual "shoulders of giants."

Emphasis on "public"!

The problem I have with the way this concept is applied is that people rely on pre-established institutions for this protection and seem to assume that, if the institution is maintained, so is the protection.
Dangerous!

This, I associate with "groupthink" in the "highest spheres" (sphere height being giving through social negotiation of prestige).

Can't help but think that *some* of those who oppose or forget this mainly fear the social risks associated with our positions being questioned or invalidated.

underline

underline

underline

underline

underline

underline

underline

underline

underline

underline

underline

underline

My guess is that those who want to argue against this hypothesis are reacting in a knee-jerk fashion, perhaps based on personal motives. Nothing inherently wrong there, but it remains as a potential bias.

Interesting way to put it.

underline

The academic equivalent of cute.

Catalyst?

Neat way to frame it.

"See? We're not opposed to you. We just think there's a more efficient way to do things."

underline

Pretty convincing ones.

Not exclusively, but it does integrate the diversity of viewpoints made obvious through crowdsourcing.

If "wisdom of crowds" really is about synthesis, then it's nothing more than groupthink.

I personally hope that a conversation about these will occur soon. What OA makes possible, in a way, is to avoid the dangers which come from the social dimension of "peerness." This was addressed earlier, and I see a clear connection with "avoiding groupthink." But the assumption that peer-review, in its current form, has reached some ultimate and eternal value as a validation system can be questioned in the context of OA.

underline

Not only is it fun as a "success story" (CHE's journalistic bent), but it may help some people understand that there is satisfaction to be found in fact-checking. In fact, verification can be self-rewarding, in an appropriate context. Seems obvious enough to many academics but it sounds counterintuitive to those who think of academia as waged labour.

Really impressive. What I tend to call a "linkfest."

toblog

toblog

toblog

toblog

toblog

toblog

toblog

toblog

toblog

toblog

toblog

toblog

toblog

toblog

toblog

toblog

toblog

toblog

toblog

toblog

toblog

toblog

toblog

toblog

toblog

toblog

toblog

Toblog

toblog

toblog

toblog

toblog

toblog