Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality

["Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>]

[scientists]
>"Name me one..."? How about Gauss, who didn't publish many of his results.
>Or, of course, Fermat, ironically linked to Wiles.

the mathematical establishment does not look with favor on Gauss'
secrecy. the commentary is generally that it is a shame he was
so secret and lost credit for his accomplishments. by the way,
I don't agree that publishing is merely about getting credit, although
because humans are egotistical, that can be a powerful motivator.

as for Fermat, -- I find it interesting you are now mentioning various
mathematicians; have never heard you refer to them. Fermat sent letters
to many of the great mathematicians of his time, and wouldn't even
be known if it weren't for his challenges. his famous theorem was
published by his *son* and this amazing gem came close to being
lost in all obscurity.

>Not to mention Darwin, who sat on his results for almost 20 years, and only
>issued a paper and his famed book because he learned another naturalist was
>about to announce similar conclusions.

in every case you cite, these people eventually published, and 
science is mostly aware of only their published results. agreed, 
science does not require that people publish immediately or even
in their own lifetime. it does demand that they eventually publish.
there are many informative episodes in which people who discovered
various scientific principles failed to convey them, or weren't
interested in it, and they had to be rediscovered by other 
scientists. these scientists advanced the knowledge by themselves
publishing.

science as a way of dealing with data can be practiced in private.
this is a feeble form.  science in its most potent form,
as the *advancement of the human condition* can only be
practiced in public.

>Publication and, more importantly, discussion and challenge, is often very
>important to the advancement of science. But is some cast in stone
>requirement? Of course not.

bzzzzzzzt. science atrophies without it. it is crucial to science.
it is central to it. but I don't wish to be considered an authority
on science or a defender of it. it has serious deficiencies as
practiced today.

>Building an artifact which embodies the science, for example. Exploding an
>atom bomb was pretty clearly a demonstration that the science done was
>correct, regardless of whether there was "open literature" or not.

you refer to science in a narrow sense of merely constructing things.
this is not the sense of science that is of crucial importance to
humanity as a whole. the atom bomb was in some ways a serious regression
of the collective human condition.

this is all so easy, refuting Timmy's feeble grasp of science, that
I might soon quit. unless I get the sense (which I have a finely honed
detector) that his veins are popping,
in which case I'll post a few treatises on the subject.

p.s.
>>I will post soon the list an article demonstrating my
>>anger at the betrayal of sound government by a sinister state
>>that has hijacked it.
>
>Have they begun torturing you with the snakes of Medusa yet?
>

hee, hee.
there are many more snakes and conspiracies 
in politics than there are in all of cyberspace. 
I've set my sights higher than nailing lame
conspiracist wannabes on an obscure mailing list degenerating
into the total noise it was always destined for. 
there are some people that are not
merely traitors to their government or various ideals, but
to the whole human race. but I'm the first to give credit
where it is due. I have always thanked all my enemies
profusely for expanding my horizons.