an open-access dilemma.

I've been reading about Galileo and his contributions to not only science as we know it, but also how information is valued and shared.  Dr. Burton's article entitled Galileo opened the heavens with Open Access was very informative.  In it, he argues that one of Galileo's greatest contributions, if not his greatest contribution, was his method of freely sharing his findings.  The article makes a strong case for internet openness:

By limiting the speed and spread of knowledge made possible online (for the righteous cause of review), they merely update Galileo's house arrest.

I completely agree.  If everyone who ever discovered something great just kept it to himself/herself, would we be living in the same kind of world?  Absolutely not.  How glad I am that some of the world's most brilliant people weren't selfish with their ideas!

The other side of the coin is this: What happens when people are too generous?  What happens when everyone shares information without some way of ranking that information?  We would have to wade through a sea of faulty information just to arrive at something reliable.  The idea of "everything open" definitely favors both those who consume and those who create, but if too many create, how will we know what to consume?  Although publishing companies and the like are made to be "the bad guys," if it weren't for them, how would I know if I'm receiving quality stuff?  How would I know where to go to find information worth consuming?

the four causes.

Aristotle was a remarkable fellow.  I was reading a little bit about his "four causes"...

1. Material cause - the elements out of which an object is created.
2. Efficient cause - the means by which it is created.
3. Formal cause - the expression of what it is.
4. Final cause - the end for which it is.

An example would be a bicycle.  Its causes are:

1. Metal, rubber, etc.
2. Created by someone who knows how to make bicycles.  (a bikesmith..?)
3. It's a bike.  Look at the picture.
4. It was made so that someone could get to school faster or have fun riding down a mountain, and so that the bikesmith could make money.

Thanks to the research of many brilliant people, we know much of our material, efficient, and formal causes.  The part that we can't quite figure out -- or at least agree on -- is our final cause.  To what end have we been made?  To those of us who have learned of God's plan and purposes for us, that seems like a given.  But I invite all of you to look again.  You may not know the details, but if you know what your final cause is, the reason for your existence, be thankful.  And be happy.

After all... "men are, that they might have joy."

openness and participation in science.

Last week I watched the film Lorenzo's Oil, in which a boy develops a disease called adrenoleukodystrophy.  The disease is rare, and the boy's parents are told that there is no hope.  They take matters into their own hands, informing themselves and eventually, finding a cure.  It was a remarkable film and many times as I watched it, the phrase "open science" came to my mind.  I had read that phrase for, admittedly, the first time in Digital Civilization class, and I found an article that defines Open Science (the complete article is found at http://www.openscience.org/blog/?p=269).  The author says that the four fundamental goals are:

• Transparency in experimental methodology, observation, and collection of data.
• Public availability and reusability of scientific data.
• Public accessibility and transparency of scientific communication.
• Using web-based tools to facilitate scientific collaboration.

That sounds like openness, right?  It also sounds like information and participation, to be sure.  While I don't profess to know a great deal about the scientific process, I'm glad to see that science is taking the same route as open-source software; as one comment states, "Open-source software...is popular not so much because it is open/free but mostly because it is better than closed-source."  Open is better.

In Lorenzo's Oil, the scientists are made to be the bad guys who have secrets they're not willing to divulge.  The film was undoubtedly one-sided because it was much more engaging that way, and I understand that scientists play by the rules for the benefit of everyone.  However, it was fascinating to see the story of people without expertise who participated and achieved great results because of their tenacity.

undercover dogs.

We've probably all learned at least a little about Henry Ford's implementation of the assembly line and the huge impact it had on the automotive industry and on the process of manufacturing in general.  The whole idea behind the assembly line is that each worker involved has a specific task that he/she does repeatedly, thus increasing production speed.  It definitely worked for Henry; it was so successful that the biggest setback was that the paint didn't dry quickly enough!

"On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog."

That was almost a century ago.  Is there now something even better?

In his book Crowdsourcing, Jeff Howe explains that the internet has allowed us as humans to get rid of the assumption that those who have experience or formal and specialized education are the only ones qualified to participate in a given field.  The cartoon to the right explains it wonderfully.  Howe states, 

"With crowdsourcing, nobody knows you don't hold a degree in organic chemistry or that you've never shot photographs professionally or that you've never taken a design class in your life.  Crowdsourcing has the capacity to form sort of perfect meritocracy.  Gone are pedigree, race, gender, age and qualification.  What remains is the quality of the work itself.  In stripping away all considerations outside quality, crowdsourcing operates under the most optimistic of assumptions: that each one of us possesses a far broader, more complex range of talents than we can currently express within current economic structures.  In this sense crowdsourcing is the antithesis of Fordism, the assembly-line mentality that dominated the industrial age."

Even more efficient than giving people a specific, monotonous task is giving people the chance to do what they love and are good at!  This concept is revolutionizing how humans interact with each other and even redefining "work" as we know it.

crowdsourcing with galileo.

Galileo knew that Earth was not the center of the universe, but that idea didn't get a lot of "likes" or "+1's" if you will.  He also did something important with telescopes.

Crowdsourcing is letting anyone who wants to help you solve a problem you have.

That's about as much as I admittedly know about Galileo and crowdsourcing.  Take that Wikipedia!

As for the 17th century, I can't produce much information on that topic either without using a lifeline...  But I do know it has something to do with the Mayflower, William Shakespeare, and my good buddy Galileo Galilei.  I believe it represents a good chunk of the Renaissance as well.

Now that I've used a lifeline, I can also tell you that in the 17th century, the Long War was fought and torture was outlawed in England.  So that's nice.

civilization: from princes to frogs.

How digitally civilized am I?  I suppose I would first have to correctly identify what it means to be "civilized".  The term usually carries a positive connotation; however, in the words of Syrus, "We were born princes and the civilizing process makes us frogs."  Now that's something to think about.  Technology and innovation is terrific and arguably makes us more "civilized", but we should limit it before it limits us.  I'm looking forward to learning more on this subject, so my blogs can be even more civilized... later on.

That said, I consider myself fairly tech-savvy, whatever that means.  But I suppose most everyone in the Digital Civilization class (or is it a circle...?) is pretty digitally civilized, even if they don't consider themselves to be.  When I returned from my LDS mission in Peru about two months ago, I realized that I had gone without many gadgets, for lack of a better word.  And I hadn't missed it.  But technology is none the less creeping back into my daily life, and it's probably here to stay.  I'm not complaining.  I just hope it doesn't turn me into an amphibian.