use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g. sub:pics site:imgur.com dog
sub:pics site:imgur.com dog
advanced search: by author, sub...
~3 users here now
submitted 1 year ago by JasonCarswell from i.imgflip.com
view the rest of the comments →
[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun - 1 year ago (1 child)
Open science is an antithesis to blind faith in Scientism, with inherent healthy skepticism and potential for practical defenses against proprietary (closed) pseudoscience in medicine and technology.
Open science uses the scientific method as a process of open discovery of shared verifiable knowledge. This contrasts with privately developed corporate proprietary science, where the processes and research are not publicly shared (or are obscured behind paywalls and/or in excessively expensive private journals), leaving all claims unverifiable nor legitimized. Thus the public is forced to have "faith" in privatized "closed science" without certainty that rigorous studies have been and are conducted, proper precautions taken, adequate warnings given, and that the results are beneficial to individuals, society, and the environment - all while serving private shareholders. The naive public is expected to "believe" all of the profit driven marketing, media hype, and propaganda, as well as the political lobbyists (a soft term for legalized bribery), and to trust for the best technology, drugs, medical care, and environmental stewardship while corporate monopolies safely and honestly earn their profits in a world where corporate corruption and status quo war profiteering are business as usual. This obscured or blind faith in corporate science is called Scientism.
It has been argued that peer-reviewed science, even computer science, had already been open until Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp. forced programmers to explicitly license products as Free or Open Source. As noted by Rob Landley, "The copyright issue changed in 1983, when the Apple v Franklin ruling extended copyright protections to binary code... Before that decision, source code was copyrightable but binaries weren't, so companies shipped source code to increase their ownership of the code in the eyes of the law. If you just shipped precompiled binaries, you had no rights the law would recognize".
On Wikipedia I started that open source article and wrote the above almost 2 years ago, right before I joined SaidIt, but a fellow SaidItor, WizzWizz4, removed it and I have yet to battle, again, to restore it. Fortunately it's backed up on InfoGalactic.
[–]Horrux 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun - 1 year ago (0 children)
Yes. BELIEF is the ultimate evil, and scientism is foremost in twisting man's propensity to believe against him.