Author Topic: NAUKA I OBRAZOVANJE u srbiji danas  (Read 20482 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Truman

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.529
Re: NAUKA I OBRAZOVANJE u srbiji danas
« Reply #1100 on: 01-07-2018, 20:25:05 »
Па ваљда ће на том факсу да науче како се пушта добра музика?!
There is neither creation nor destruction, neither destiny nor free will, neither path nor achievement. This is the final truth.
Sri Ramana

tomat

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.620
Re: NAUKA I OBRAZOVANJE u srbiji danas
« Reply #1101 on: 01-07-2018, 21:06:18 »
Pa to je sad pitanje, što je nekom dobra muzika drugom nije. Mislim da je fokus na tehnici. Ono, skreće čelom, pomeranje fejdera nosem i slično.

Možda se profilišu kroz izborne predmete. Npr, DJ za svadbe, DJ za maturske večeri, DJ za splavove, DJ za klubove, DJ za zagrevanje pred koncert, DJ za after,...
Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded.

Pizzobatto

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 7.756
Re: NAUKA I OBRAZOVANJE u srbiji danas
« Reply #1102 on: 01-07-2018, 21:37:57 »
zaboravio si neoliberalnog didžeja!

Truman

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.529
Re: NAUKA I OBRAZOVANJE u srbiji danas
« Reply #1103 on: 18-07-2018, 23:45:49 »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXdxH4bsic0

каква легенда, не знам где другде да поставим ал има везе с науком и образовањем ( мада не у Србији ). Човек тврди да су прастари фосили стари 6000 година и да је човек тада био висок 4 метра.
There is neither creation nor destruction, neither destiny nor free will, neither path nor achievement. This is the final truth.
Sri Ramana

tomat

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.620
Re: NAUKA I OBRAZOVANJE u srbiji danas
« Reply #1104 on: 19-07-2018, 00:11:14 »
pa mogao si, recimo, u topik koji si sam pokrenuo

http://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/index.php?topic=14779.0
Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded.

Truman

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.529
Re: NAUKA I OBRAZOVANJE u srbiji danas
« Reply #1105 on: 19-07-2018, 00:12:57 »
Нисам хтео јер је интервју о креационизму, не толико о џиновима. Фокус је на томе да човек који предају биологију на универзитету тврди да је бог створио људе готове и да је еволуција измишљотина.
There is neither creation nor destruction, neither destiny nor free will, neither path nor achievement. This is the final truth.
Sri Ramana


Truman

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.529
Re: NAUKA I OBRAZOVANJE u srbiji danas
« Reply #1107 on: 19-07-2018, 00:57:11 »
Добар човек, штета што је негде у том процесу залутао...
There is neither creation nor destruction, neither destiny nor free will, neither path nor achievement. This is the final truth.
Sri Ramana

Pizzobatto

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 7.756
Re: NAUKA I OBRAZOVANJE u srbiji danas
« Reply #1108 on: 19-07-2018, 01:12:50 »
al na sajtu piše da se bavi proučavanjem "evolution and development of invertebrate colour patterns" :lol:

Truman

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.529
Re: NAUKA I OBRAZOVANJE u srbiji danas
« Reply #1109 on: 19-07-2018, 01:15:09 »
Па да, еволуцију тих неких образаца ( претпостављам биљака ако су боје у питању ), не еволуцију човека!
There is neither creation nor destruction, neither destiny nor free will, neither path nor achievement. This is the final truth.
Sri Ramana

Pizzobatto

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 7.756
Re: NAUKA I OBRAZOVANJE u srbiji danas
« Reply #1110 on: 19-07-2018, 01:18:19 »
i životinja kolko sam vidio, al đe nađe evoluciju za 6 iljada godina, a lažne fosile i slično, ovaj baš šuntavilo neki

Truman

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.529
Re: NAUKA I OBRAZOVANJE u srbiji danas
« Reply #1111 on: 19-07-2018, 01:21:35 »
Не сумњам да је интелигентан човек. Види му се то по фаци. Зато ме чуди шта му је то кврцнуло у мозгу...ово је много гора девијација од оне др антивакцинашице. Пре ћу да поверујем да нас неко трује преко вакцина него да смо тек тако настали пре 6000 година.
There is neither creation nor destruction, neither destiny nor free will, neither path nor achievement. This is the final truth.
Sri Ramana

akhnaton

  • Against all
  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.589
  • I Walk Alone... and not give a damn...
Re: NAUKA I OBRAZOVANJE u srbiji danas
« Reply #1112 on: 19-07-2018, 09:48:20 »
Не сумњам да је интелигентан човек. Види му се то по фаци. Зато ме чуди шта му је то кврцнуло у мозгу...ово је много гора девијација од оне др антивакцинашице. Пре ћу да поверујем да нас неко трује преко вакцина него да смо тек тако настали пре 6000 година.

Problem je u tome što nismo nastali pre 6000 godina. Nego mnooogo pre. Ovaj je tipičan produkt biblijskog pojasa SAD i bukvalnog tumačenja proze i poezije. Nešto nalik domaćim, ali i sveckim autohtonistima kojima kao izvor istorijskih podataka služe epske pesme. Što ne bi predstaljalo problem da ih oni ne tumače bukvalno. 

A za one koji veruju da nas je stvorio Bog i koji ne mogu da prihvate evoluciju, samo jedno. Bog nas nije stvarao ex nihilo, nego je pre toga stvorio sastavne delove, pa polako oblikovao.
Politically Incorrect member of "Snage Haosa i Bezumlja"

ankh Em Maat  since 1973.

Scordisk

  • 3
  • Posts: 2.443
Re: NAUKA I OBRAZOVANJE u srbiji danas
« Reply #1113 on: 19-07-2018, 11:50:19 »
pa pazi, pogrešna je tema jer je terzin zapravo profesor u kanadi, pa bi trebalo da ide na temu obrazovanje u kanadi danas :D

inače, postoje neke suptilne razlike između silnih jutjub proroka na rubu znanosti i ovih drugih, u koje ubrajam terzina.

prvo, što je po meni interesantno, jeste to da terzin iznosi sasvim legitimne hipoteze i pokušava da ih dokaže, pri čemu i sam tvrdi da ne poseduje neke konačne dokaze koji bi nepobitno potvrdile to što on veli. ipak, mnoge stvari o kojima govori su već dugo poznate i dugo se pisalo o njima (postojanje potopa, kako u arheološkim, tako i u mitološkim i usmenim dokazima, fomenkova hronologija koja dokazuje nepouzdanost trenutne istorijske paradigme, određena "unifromnost" svih religija i predanja, manjkavosti koje se vezuju za evolutivnu teoriju a koje još nisu do kraja objašnjene), pa je interesantno otvoreno pristupiti tim idejama, bez predrasuda, u duhu prosvetiteljskom i naučnom, jelte. druga je sasvim legitimna kritika evolucionizma, koji takođe ne raspolaže nepobitnim dokazima za svoje tvrdnje, samo je danas tabu ako se to uzme u razmatranje.

predlažem vam da poslušate predavanja bez nekih predrasuda. terzin je staložen, jasno govori, iznosi određene ubedljive argumente, samokritičan je itd., pa je u najboljem slučaju barem interesantno to razmotriti u duhu koji odlikuje sve iskrene ljubitelje fantastike

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnPiHzkF_tA&t=2458s


tomat

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.620
Re: NAUKA I OBRAZOVANJE u srbiji danas
« Reply #1114 on: 19-07-2018, 12:35:46 »
na stranu kritika evolucionizma, ali meni Terzinovi argumenti ne izgledaju uopšte kao argumenti.

On kaže "evo vidimo prst, dugačak 40 cm, ne verujem da je lažan" i to je sad kao neki argument da su zemlju naseljavali džinovi. ili da li je Gilgameš veliki ili lav mali, i zašto su faraoni prikazivani većim u odnosu na ostale ljude. pa valjda je simbolika jasna, zato što su vladari, i zato što su iznad pučanstva, to prikazivanje kao velikih valjda treba da istakne njih u odnosu na "običan"svet.

imao je i Miroljub Petrović svojevremeno serijal Čudesa stvaranja na TV Palma, ista tematika manje više.
Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded.

tomat

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.620
Re: NAUKA I OBRAZOVANJE u srbiji danas
« Reply #1115 on: 19-07-2018, 12:39:43 »
Па да, еволуцију тих неких образаца ( претпостављам биљака ако су боје у питању ), не еволуцију човека!

beskičmenjaci su u pitanju.
Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded.

Truman

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.529
Re: NAUKA I OBRAZOVANJE u srbiji danas
« Reply #1116 on: 19-07-2018, 17:16:14 »
Иначе, сад довршавам интервју...лик тврди да су СВА жива бића стара највише 6000 година и да су диносауруси живели заједно с људима.
There is neither creation nor destruction, neither destiny nor free will, neither path nor achievement. This is the final truth.
Sri Ramana

Pizzobatto

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 7.756
Re: NAUKA I OBRAZOVANJE u srbiji danas
« Reply #1117 on: 31-08-2018, 23:09:48 »

Truman

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.529
Re: NAUKA I OBRAZOVANJE u srbiji danas
« Reply #1118 on: 31-08-2018, 23:34:05 »
Откад је овај ДиЏеј? Он ваљда важи за трулог богаташа...
There is neither creation nor destruction, neither destiny nor free will, neither path nor achievement. This is the final truth.
Sri Ramana

Pizzobatto

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 7.756
Re: NAUKA I OBRAZOVANJE u srbiji danas
« Reply #1119 on: 31-08-2018, 23:37:55 »

Truman

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.529
Re: NAUKA I OBRAZOVANJE u srbiji danas
« Reply #1120 on: 31-08-2018, 23:56:50 »
Кликнуо на палац на горе, барем човек уме да ужива са женама...
There is neither creation nor destruction, neither destiny nor free will, neither path nor achievement. This is the final truth.
Sri Ramana

Pizzobatto

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 7.756
Re: NAUKA I OBRAZOVANJE u srbiji danas
« Reply #1121 on: 30-09-2018, 23:57:14 »
The Neoliberal campaign of ‘Open science’
There is very little news to feel heartened about as a scientist these days; so it is all the
more noteworthy that the new new thing in science policy circles is an open infatuation with
‘open science’. The whole thing kicked off in the later 2000s, with rumors of something called
Science 2.0. The New York Times then had the good sense to rebrand this imaginary utopia as
“open science” in January 2012.67 The British Royal Society intervened close on its heels in
65
(Bessi & Ferrara, 2016).
66
See (Drexl, 2016, p.9).
67
(Lin, 2012).32
2012, with a public relations document entitled Science as an Open Enterprise.68 Subsequently,
this was rapidly followed by a popularizing book, succeeded by a plethora of government white
papers and policy documents.69 All sorts of obscure institutes and think tanks (the Ronin
Institute, Center for Open Science, openscienceASAP, UK Open Data Institute, PCORI, Laura
and John Arnold Foundation) then sprouted across the landscape, dedicated to propounding the
virtues of ‘open science’ for all and sundry. The NIH even teamed up with the Wellcome Trust
and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute to offer a much ballyhooed “Open Science Prize”
consisting of six awards to various teams of the not-very-princely sum of $80K with which to
launch (?) their prototypes.70 In 2013, the G8 Science Ministers formally endorsed a policy of
encouraging open science.71 Perhaps displaying some of the same panache which has lately
graced politics in the European Union, the EU Competitiveness Council in May 2016 issued a
mission statement that all scientific articles should be ‘freely accessible’ by 2020.72 "The time for
talking about Open Access is now past. With these agreements, we are going to achieve it in
practice," the Dutch state secretary for education, culture, and science, Sander Dekker, added in a
statement. Lord knows, the last thing an EU bureaucrat has patience with is talking about
something that is not at all well understood.
Many people have the impression ‘open science’ is primarily about lay access to gated
scientific papers published by large for-profit firms; but in fact, that is a sideshow in the greater
project to ‘open up’ science. As we might anticipate, the neoliberal attitude is to wrest the very
conduct of science away from its putative untrustworthy experts, and subject it to a bracing
market discipline. This is proposed as a panacea for whatever ails science: lack of democracy,
public distrust of science, a suspected slowdown in scientific productivity, the corruption of
modern scientific journals, the crisis of replicability in scientific journals, and much else.
68
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/sape/2012-06-20-SAOE.pdf
69
See (Nielsen, 2012; OECD, 2015; Vuorikari & Punie, 2015;
70
www.openscienceprize.org The six teams further engage in further competition for a single prize of $230K, which hardly matches more
conventional big science grant amounts. The final winner will be announced in March 2017.
71
See http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/science/130613-science.html ; including the ominous statement,” To ensure successful adoption by scientific
communities, open scientific research data principles will need to be underpinned by an appropriate policy environment, including recognition of
researchers fulfilling these principles, and appropriate digital infrastructure.”
72
(Enserink, 2016). A Dutch infomercial promoting open science is available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxHmi5omhj433
Thus it has come to pass that one consequence of the reverberating debates over the depth
of these crises is to shift the terms of the remedies to different business models covering not only
publication, but the peer review process as well. The entrepreneurial visions of a different
configuration of science often evoke the magic of the marketplace to displace centuries-old
practices of science:
You don’t have to reinvent the system, just nudge it a bit…. If you do it in an efficient way,
people will do it… Open science funders get a higher return on investment.73
Michael Nielsen, perhaps the major publicist making the case for Open Science, similarly
sings the praises of a commercial approach to reform: “One of humanity’s most powerful tools
for amplifying collective intelligence is the market system.”74 Since many scientists are attracted
to the Open Science movement believing it to be a renunciation of older commercial models, it is
of paramount importance to understand precisely what the advocates of Open Science imagine
will replace the current system of science organization.75
It seems in the current climate, the favorite panacea for the replication crisis, and indeed
everything else that ails science, is the watchword of more ‘transparency’ imposed through the
regimentation of a social-media style Internet platform. Sometimes its advocates hint such
platforms will displace journals gradually, while others imagine a world without any oldfashioned journals at all. For instance, Mike Eisen, one of the pioneers of e-Biomed and PLOS
has in fact explicitly proposed that we should eventually just do away with journals and convert
to a complete open preprint plus post-publication peer review system.76 Others have yet even
larger ambitions. Some early entrepreneurs openly advocated a “Facebook for Science”, which
begins to reveal how the scramble to produce platforms is informed by earlier developments in
social media.77 The modern Open Science movement trends towards an entirely public reengineering of science,
Table 2
73
Brian Nosek, in Q&A session (Effective Altruism Global, 2016).
74
(Nielsen, 2012, p.37)
75
For some sources, see: (Lehrer, 2010; Lin, 2012; Nielsen, 2012; Trask & Lawrence, 2016; Hammarfelt et al, 2016; Oransky & Marcus, 2016; …
76
See http://asapbio.org/coupling-pppr .
77
See (Lin, 2012; Hearn, 2016). Long after I had begun this research project, I was shocked to discover one of these projects as my own
university: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enohoM6cBww34
Table 2 Adapted from: (Brugelman et al, 2010).
from the earliest inchoate preparatory stages of a research project to the final dissemination and
evaluation of the results. As summarized in Table 2, this imagines every aspect of the project
happening online, from the earliest preliminary reading regimen as a survey of the literature, to
recourse to Open Data sets, produced either by the researcher themselves or else by some other
scientist, to real-time commentary by others on the research protocols, to drafts of reports
uploaded to preprint servers, to quasi-journal publications online, to extensive peer review
continuing well after the final draft is posted online. Back in 2010, one might have imagined this
happening piecemeal, with, say, a stand-alone preprint server like arXiv performing one
function, while a separate website – perhaps like PubPeer – might foster critical commentary
linked to specific papers, combined in a sort of free-for-all semi-peer-review. So far, there
seemed to be no whiff of markets. But no one would believe any such cobbled-together system
would work without the reassurance of a political ideology to fortify their ambitions.
The most important aspect of this Brave New World is to come to understand why it’s
champions would believe that such a sloppy unintegrated bottom-up system beset by waves of
ignorant kibitzers would produce anything but white noise. The paladins of Science 2.0 love to
quote the injunction “With enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow”; but that presumes that all
science is merely an instrumental task, similar to the building of software. Here one has to reinject a modicum of context, as well as insist upon the dominant narrative of a political ontology
which renders this revolutionary project plausible. And here is where a comprehension of the
philosophical aspect of neoliberalism is indispensable.
There may be abundant dissatisfaction with the state of science in the modern university,
but as I have explained in detail in my ScienceMart, much of this current distress derives from35
the concerted political project to wean the university sector away from the state over the last
three decades, and to render both instruction and research more responsive to market incentives,
thus doing away with older Humboldtian rationales of bildung and the preservation of the
cultural values of civilization. This, in turn, has been motivated by the political project of
Neoliberalism, which takes as its first commandment that The Market is the most superior
information processor known to mankind. For their acolytes, no human can or ever will match
the Wisdom of the Market. The knowledge held by any individual is (in this construction) of a
weak and deceptive sort; no human being can ever comprehend the amount of information
embodied in a market price; therefore, experts (and scientists) should not be accorded much
respect, since the Market ultimately reduces them to the same epistemic plane as rank amateurs.
This is glossed in some quarters as the ‘wisdom of crowds’. Neoliberals propose a
democratization of knowledge, but in a curious sense: everyone should equally prostrate
themselves before a Market, which will then supply them with Truth in the fullness of time.
The crises of modern science, curiously enough, were largely brought about by neoliberal
initiatives in the first place. First off, it was the neoliberal think tanks that first stoked the fires of
science distrust amongst the populace that have led to the current predicament. It was neoliberals
who provided the justification for the strengthening of intellectual property; it was the
neoliberals who drove a wedge between state funding of research and state provision of findings
of universities for the public good; it was neoliberal administrators who began to fragment the
university into ‘cash cows’ and loss leader disciplines; it was neoliberal corporate officers who
sought to wrest clinical trials away from academic health centers and towards contract research
organizations to better control the disclosure or nondisclosure of the data generated. In some
universities, students now have to sign nondisclosure agreements if they want initiation into the
mysteries of faculty startups. It is no longer a matter of what you know; rather success these days
is your ability to position yourself with regard to the gatekeepers of what is known. Knowledge
is everywhere hedged round with walls, legal prohibitions, and high market barriers breached
only by those blessed with riches required to be enrolled into the elect circles of modern science.
Further, belief in the Market as ultimate arbiter of truth has served to loosen the fetters of more
conscious vetting of knowledge through promulgation of negative results and the need to reprise
research protocols. No wonder replication turns out to be so daunting. One can understand the
desire to cast off these fetters and let the Market do the work for us.36
The irony of the situation is that although this petrification of the scientific enterprise
could largely be attributed to previous neoliberal ‘reforms’ in the first instance, the remedy
proposed is to double down on neoliberal policies, now under the rubric of ‘open science’.
Rather than simply foster ‘participation’, modern science is choc-a-block with proprietary
websites that aim to utterly re-engineer the research process from the ground up. Internet startups
are thick on the Web, befitting the early stages of a push to engross and capture new electronic
real estate. Academia.edu, Mendeley and ResearchGate seek to foster artificial research
communities to attract far-flung kibitzers to discuss and criticize the early-stage search for topics
in which to become engaged in research. CERN has built Zendor in order to standardize the
sharing of early-state research products. Open Notebook and Open Collaborate (and Microsoft’s
failed myExperiment.org) are platforms to organize the early stages of research out in the open,
even to the extent of conducting ‘virtual experiments’; while sites like Kickstarter offer
alternative modes of seeking out research support. There are purported ‘citizen science’ sites
which entice non-scientists to perform remote labor for aspects of data processing which can be
Taylorized and automated—SETI@home and Foldit are oft-cited examples. There are a plethora
of platforms for publication management and controlled revision by multiple ‘authors’, although
most of them are proprietary and closely held, in contrast with something like the physics prepublication site arXiv.org. Indeed, in clinical trials, most CROs are built around such proprietary
platforms. A burgeoning field of startups foster post-publication platforms to evaluate and
otherwise rank papers in various fields using what are dubbed AltMetrics, sometimes combined
with collated unpaid reviews, as on the site Faculty of 1000. Firms like Science Exchange,
Transcriptic and Emerald Cloud Lab attempt to automate actual (mainly biochemical or clinical)
lab procedures online, to better to outsource and fragment the research process, and nominally, to
render replication relatively effortless. While different platforms aim to apply the concepts of
social media to some restricted subset of the research process—say, the blog-like character of
unfocused searching around for topics; early-stage establishment of research protocols; the
arrangement of funding; the virtualization of the laboratory; the intermediate stage of manuscript
composition and revision; or post-publication evaluation—it does not take much imagination to
anticipate that once the market shakes itself out, and one platform eventually comes to dominate
its competitors within key segments of certain sciences, Google or some similar corporate entity
will come along with its deep pockets, and integrate each segment into one grand proprietary37
Science 2.0 platform. Who would not then want to own the obligatory online passage point for
the bulk of modern scientific research? The science entrepreneur Vitek Trask has already
sketched the outlines of one completely integrated online research platform;78 the aptly-named
‘Ronin Institute’ has proposed another, arguing, “Open Access and Open Data will make so
much more of a difference if we had the same kind of dynamism in the academic and nonprofit
sector as we have in the for-profit start-up sector.”79 As many of the entrepreneurial protagonists
of the reorganization of science admit, Facebook is their lode star and inspiration.
Readers of Michel Foucault will realize that the key to the process of spreading
neoliberalism into everyday life involves recasting the individual into an entrepreneur of the self.
Technologies such as Facebook already foster neoliberal notions of what it means to be human
amongst teenagers who have never read a page of Hayek or political theory in their lives.80
Novel open science platforms inject neoliberal images of the marketplace of ideas into the
scientific community, which equally may not have paid much attention to contemporary political
economy. For instance, the programs are all besotted with the notion of complete identification
of the individual as the locus of knowledge production, to the extent of imposing a unique online
identifier for each participant, which links records across the platform and modular projects. The
communal character of scientific research is summarily banished. The scientist is introduced to a
quasi-market that constantly monitors their ‘net worth’ through a range of metrics, scores and
indicators: h-index, Impact Factors, peer contacts, network affiliations, and the like. Regular
email notifications keep nagging you to internalize these validations, and learn how to game
them to your advantage. No direct managerial presence is required, because one automatically
learns to internalize these seemingly objective market-like valuations, rather than (say) tenacious
belief in a set of ideas, or a particular research program. All it takes is a little nudge from your
friendly online robot.
There is another curious aspect concerning the Open Science movement which is
illuminated by a more general understanding of the neoliberal project. As I have explained
elsewhere, Neoliberalism is beset with a brace of inherent ‘double truths’:81 ‘openness’ is never
78
(Trask & Lawrence, 2016).
79
http://ronininstitute.org/open-science-and-its-discontents/1484/
80
I discuss this further in (Mirowski, 2013, chap. 3).
81
(Mirowski, 2013, pp.68-83).38
really ‘open’; ‘spontaneous order’ is brought about by strict political regimentation; a movement
which extols rationality actively promotes ignorance. The first of these double truths has already
been highlighted for the early versions of the OS movement by some perceptive work in science
studies.82 The physics prepublication service arXiv is often praised as a proof of concept for
Open Science; but that just ignores its actual history of conflict and unresolved problems.
Founded in 1991, arXiv rapidly became the website of choice, to the extent of receiving 75,000
new texts each year, and providing roughly 1 million full-text downloads to about 400,000
distinct users every week.83 The growth in arXiv has been linear, attracting papers in
mathematics, astrophysics and computer science, demonstrated in Figure 5.
Figure 5
82
(Ritson, 2016).
83
(Ginsparg, 2011).39
What has been omitted from this litany of success is the extent to which arXiv has not
been altogether ‘open’. The problems were only hinted at in Ginsparg’s retrospective:
Again, because of cost and labour overheads, arXiv would not be able to implement
conventional peer review. Even the minimal filtering of incoming preprints to maintain basic
quality control involves significant daily administrative activity. Incoming abstracts are given
a cursory glance by volunteer external moderators for appropriateness to their subject areas;
and various automated filters, including a text classifier, flag problem submissions…
Moderators, tasked with determining what is of potential interest to their communities,
are sometimes forced to ascertain ‘what is science?’ At this point arXiv unintentionally
becomes an accrediting agency for researchers, much as the Science Citation Index
became an accrediting agency for journals, by formulating criteria for their inclusion.84
Although Ginsparg tries to dismiss this as a mere matter of logistical housekeeping, arXiv
has been continually roiled by pressure to act as a validator of legitimate knowledge: that is, to
reign in its nominal ‘openness’. This problem broke out into the open during the so-called
‘string theory wars’ in 2005-2007. In short, arXiv introduced a ‘trackback’ function in 2005
which enabled authors of blog posts to insert a link for the post on the paper abstract page in
arXiv. Note well, this is the beginning of integration of arXiv into a larger OS platform, linking
archive functions to evaluation of ideas. The physics community found itself up in arms to deny
this capability to ‘crackpots’, revealing a fear of integration of blogs into the permanent body of
scholarly communication. In effect, there was no acceptable standard to distinguish those who
had the right to comment from those who needed to be excluded. The problem was only
exacerbated by differing research communities allowing different attitudes to the forms and
protocols of debate. There have been repeated attempts to severely restrict the trackback function
to prevent the turning of arXiv into a central component of a larger Open Science platform. The
Neoliberal response would be: it is not the place of the disciplinary community to decide where
openness ‘ends’.
What exactly is neoliberal about the incipient electronic manifestation of Science 2.0?
Let us survey the possibilities. First off, the proliferation of open research platforms is primarily
subordinate to the project of breaking up the research process into relatively separable
component segments, in pursuit of their rationalization, which means first and foremost, costcutting. This happens through the intermediary of deskilling some of the tasks performed
84
(Ginsparg, 2011, p.147).40
(‘citizen science’) and automating others (AltMetrics, rendering Big Data accessible to Web
crawlers). Capturing freely donated labor which can later be turned into proprietary knowledge
products is the analog to capturing freely provided personal data. Thus Science 2.0 constitutes
the removal of autonomy from the research scientist. Neoliberal science disparages scientists
who remain in the rut of their own chosen disciplinary specialty or intellectual inspiration; what
is required these days are flexible workers who can drop a research project at a moment’s notice,
and turn on an interdisciplinary dime, in response to signals from the Market. The short-term
nature of science funding, as embodied in Kickstarter or recent innovations by the NIH, simply
expresses this imperative. Secondly, the selling point of many of these platforms is not just
providing direct services to the scientist involved; at every stage of research, they provide
external third parties with the capacities for evaluation, validation, branding and monitoring of
research program. Their nominal ‘openness’ constitutes the ideal setup for near real-time
surveillance of the research process, a Panopticon of Science, something which can be turned
around and sold in the very same sense that Facebook provides real-time surveillance of
consumer behavior. Third, the paladins of Science 2.0 have moved far beyond quotidian
concerns of appropriation of individual bits of intellectual property, like patents. What they have
learned (similar to Microsoft, similar to Google, similar to Uber) is that the company that
controls the platform is the company that eventually comes to dominate the industry. Microsoft
has learned to live with Open Source; Amazon leases out cloud computing, Google ‘gives away’

Google Scholar. The future king of Science 2.0 will not be a mere patent troll, living as a parasite
off companies who actually work the patents; it will not be perturbed by a few mandatory Open
Data archives here and there. Instead, it will be the obligatory passage point for any commercial
entity who wants to know where the research front of any particular science is right now, and
whom must be paid to influence and control that front.
This race to be the King of Platforms that controls the future of Open Science is already
happening.
This dream of an Uberization of science is much further along than I believe most people
realize. While some academics spin their visions of sugarplum in the air, various big players are
positioning themselves to package together all the functions in Figure 7 into one big proprietary
platform. On August 30, 2016 the US Patent Office issued US Patent #9430468 entitled, “Online
peer review and method”. The owner of the patent is none other than the for-profit megapublisher Elsevier. The essential gist of the patent is to describe the process of a peer review
being organized and effectuated on a computer program, as in Figure 7.
Figure 742
Of course, it would be the height of hubris to expect to appropriate the entire concept of
peer review as intellectual property; but perhaps that was not really the aim of Elsevier. The
Patent Office rejected this patent at least three times, but under the unlimited do-over rule in US
law, Elsevier kept narrowing the claims until the stipulation passed muster. It does include an
automated ‘waterfall process’ in which the rejected paper is immediately turned around to be
submitted to another journal in a recommended sequence. It is also plug-compatible with a
variety of different formats of ‘reviewer’ inputs.
In the brave new world of open science, this input might take many forms. Some
researchers are already exploring automated peer review: using a natural language generator to
produce plausible research reports, using some more unconventional evaluation inputs.85 One of
the inputs has been constructed with an eye toward the crisis of replicability: taking standardized
datasets and research protocols and conducting automated replication with robot labs. Far from
being science fiction, there are already two for-profit firms, Transcriptic and Emerald Cloud Lab,
positioning themselves to provide this service in a more automated and streamlined Open
Science platform.

Pizzobatto

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 7.756
Re: NAUKA I OBRAZOVANJE u srbiji danas
« Reply #1122 on: 30-09-2018, 23:58:31 »
očajno prekopirano...

https://www.ineteconomics.org/uploads/papers/Mirowski-Hell-is-Truth-Seen-Too-Late.pdf

od 32. strane

eto šta neoliberalčine rade!!!

Pizzobatto

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 7.756
Re: NAUKA I OBRAZOVANJE u srbiji danas
« Reply #1123 on: 09-11-2018, 12:25:37 »