@MathildeNoual presents her work on Boolean Automata Networks, a model used to describe different kinds of causalities. The connections between mathematical models and the biological realities they represent may not be as clear as they seem…
Good news! The MMM is hiring! ...and from the #CEA! It's all about #publicKnowledge, #collectiveIntelligence, and #science-making. It's happening from the ideal place to build such a project: the #CEA-Tech. More info 👉 https://t.co/cgVEoTPr21 Job descr. 👉https://t.co/iSEaWVjdc0
@AdamMGrant Nice formulation but i feel the difficulty of the IS is mostly elsewhere: in the reflex to emphasize our historical familiarity with struggle & notice manifestations of others' ease.
@andy_matuschak I have mixed feelings about this challenge. Noble basic ideas def deserving encouragement. But they seem to think this enterprise requires so little work that some of it can be done for free. Very imprecise on what their plans are. Unclear what they hope to achieve with 1 app.
An optimistic nuance to @michael_nielsen and @andy_matuschak 's fantastically rich, inspiring & necessary paper https://t.co/dP1Z5QsNNx : https://t.co/UwLfMPLcS2
Rather than picking obvious holes into the system of scholarly communication/evaluation, could we talk of what works despite the system? What we can do as experts capable of much more than communicating through the system & getting evaluated? https://t.co/UwLfMPLcS2 #OpenScience
@khinsen @brembs Tendency to shortcut demanding expert judgment using quick quantification is not unusual in humans. Maybe it's gotten out of hand in academia. Maybe also, on the positive side, there is something unique about science that can facilitate the creation of complementary currencies.
@petermurrayrust@brembs That's exactly where I'm getting at...: concretely how do we build a practical realistic infrastructure, how do we ensure it has traction, financial sustainability etc. First need to get on the same page. Stop exchanging opinions. We need a plan and to pull our socks up!
@khinsen @brembs You've got a point with the idea of non-existential competition. I would also formulate it in terms of finding ways to recognise the value researchers can produce without depending on scare resources.
Discussion about creativity in science and creating great environments for nurturing this. Great places give individual scientists room to pursue their ideas but also create space for deep, non-competitive, listening and reflection. Diversity in topics/systems is also valuable.
I'm at the Science Ethics and Politics day at the HU Berlin, listening to @BorisBarbour present a piece of the future of science-making: organic peer-review ie peers discussing and challenging each other's science. Its called @PubPeer.