[p2p-research] shots in the dark/p2p article

[Ryan Lanham]

I agree science isn't unified, but the scientific approach...the rules of
the game...are generally agreed.  Not so with outland topics...scientology,
homeopathy, chiropractory, acupuncture.

I agree with you that scientific research is sometimes "bought."  I also
agree that universities can become "kept."  It's a serious problem I fear.

When we put scientology and psychiatry in comparison, I think it is giving a
legitimacy to one that is not widely acknowledged or accepted.  Few research
hospitals would look at scientology as a possible mode of treatment.  All
would have some mainstream form of psychiatry.  Within psychiatry there is
much to debate and sharp, even fierce, disputes.  But the disputes resolve
through standard formats...publications, treatment protocol changes,
diagnostic book changes, etc.  That may not be your intent, but it is
difficult to not read a comparison as a peer to peer relationship.

Part of the governance issue with P2P is that it doesn't allow for simple
hierarchies of legitimacy to form.  In university research, a person attains
standing by publishing and judging frequently.  Yet, in theory, there are
multiple outlets so that even if an error is made, some lesser outlet will
publish.  If not Science, then Nature, if not Nature, some other journal,
etc.  Each one has a collection of peers who value it a certain way.  The
commons is the reputation scheme.  That is very much why I like reputation
schemes in nearly all P2P outlets.  How else could we judge the value of
code submitted to a large commons?  We need judgment. Judgment given
economic weight is simply a market with money.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20091001/1b45899a/attachment.html>