@failedLyndonLaRouchite@mas.to
Post #3929595
2026-07-18 20:41 UTC
Replies (5)
-
@SecondUniverse@autistics.life 2026-07-18 20:48
@failedLyndonLaRouchite@mas.to @afewbugs@social.coop well a lot of scientists are capitalists. I think the toot is more about the contrast between the ideologies.
-
@rood@aus.social 2026-07-18 23:21
@failedLyndonLaRouchite@mas.to @afewbugs@social.coop Damn dude, didn't I just see you trolling on another thread? Are you doing the rounds?
-
@drmambobob@ecoevo.social 2026-07-19 09:08
@failedLyndonLaRouchite@mas.to @afewbugs@social.coop I don’t really know the examples you have in mind but commercialisation often locks scientific knowledge away behind paywalls and trade secrets. Science has to be reproducible so needs to be open and transparent but commercialisation often prohibits that…
-
@Robotistry@fediscience.org 2026-07-19 10:34
@failedLyndonLaRouchite@mas.to @afewbugs@social.coop Yes, science that has direct commercial value has been hoarded by scientists - specifically by people who know the tech and want to be rewarded for transitioning it out of the lab. But this post covers science that has no direct commercial value, science that is not being hoarded by scientists, and science that is done by scientists who want help and credit for finding an answer or solution. And *that* science is being hoarded by academic journals.
-
@adredish@neuromatch.social 2026-07-19 13:03
@failedLyndonLaRouchite@mas.to @afewbugs@social.coop But also, there is lots of science that has NOT been hoarded by scientists (or others --- it's usually others, but sure, there are problematic scientists too). In my personal observation, the vast majority of scientists want to share. (In part, because the vast majority of science is not immediately valuable. The vast majority of science has impact too far in the future [decades] for it to be profitable to the 6-month-horizon capitalists.) The entire computer science field was created by open source sharing that was not "held". In the neuro and cognitive science fields that I currently live in, progress has consistently been from sharing new ideas openly. (There are no cases of held science turning into $$$ in cogneuro or computer science. In fact, all the $$$ cases have come from people using openly shared ideas. This is true even in the notoriously capitalist AI world.) Even in biochemistry, there have been positive examples (e.g. insulin). I would argue that (in my observations) those scientists who have hoarded ideas have generally failed scientifically relative to those who have shared. Good science wants to be free because it very much is a non-zero sum game. Scientists are human and fall victim to the societal structure they live in. The problem is the current scientific publishing structure depends on these capitalist predators / parasites leeching off of our actual work. This publishing structure provides nothing for scientific communication. Moreover, it is not a hoarding of scientific knowledge so that the scientists can make $$$ on it. Scientists are losing $$$ to those publishers. It's frustrating that this is why we can't have nice things. :(