/townhall/ - Townhall

>>4830
Hmm, well, i guess one thing that comes to mind is managing free research availability. One problem i find is that there's a lot of kinds of science, and so there's not necessarily much for, say, a IT systems manager and an organic chemist to talk about. Only thing that comes to mind is experimental methodology, which could be interesting. I do think the group needs a more clear-cut purpose, in any case. I suppose solidarity in logic and the scientific method is a binding factor, and there's plenty of tribalists around these days, so i suppose that would be as good a unifying theme as any.

>>4832
I think as far as research availability, I would leave it to individuals to decide whether to put their work behind a paywall or not.  I'd just note that if someone can't talk about their work in a society -- for confidentiality or national security reasons -- their participation will be kinda one-sided.

>group needs a more clear-cut purpose
I'm thinking of it being somewhat local, and focused most on the needs of independent scientists, and value diversity the best I can.  I would focus on one kind of science, but I do work with plants and animals and astronomy, along with computer science, and I don't want to create a lot of groups.  There's always an option for sub-grouping if necessary.  Really depends on if anyone joins, I guess.

Sorry, still been very busy with one of my jobs, just trying to survive.  I think in a few weeks I will be able to get back to the scientific profession.

I see you're still not very good at maintaining your anonymity

At what point would you consider someone a "scientist"? Only people who work in a scientific field? There are plenty of people with a casual interest in science like me. What about students who don't have a job in the field yet? Or people who invent in the spare time? And what fields would count? There's scientific components in a lot of fields that aren't considered "science", like cooking.

>>4944
>maintaining your anonymity
That involves authorities on this site.  I have no role in being anonymous.

>At what point would you consider someone a "scientist"?

For the sake of my group, someone who does some kind of science, is able to talk about science, and is not a troll.  One of my values is making science more democratic.

(Suppose I might have to make some judgements on people who pursue scientific work but only tolerate one result -- eg. fundamentalist Christians trying to prove the literal truth of the Bible.)

>And what fields would count?
My impulse is to avoid fields where science and public health intersect too much -- medicine, mostly.  I want to encourage people to do scientific experiments but not endanger the group through association with people getting hurt, I guess.