Is the author of 'open notebook astronomy' an idiot?  Over at 365DOA, there is a full article on open notebook astronomy.  What is open notebook?  Making your data and your work visible, rather than only presenting the subset you find personally relevant.

How does this help science?  Well, I could re-imagine the above article, but without openness.  Instead, I just present the parts that I think are relevant to my argument that the author of open notebook astronomy is, indeed, an idiot.

To support this, he starts with "Much of [...] an astronomer [is] a secret."  I argue that means he can't be trusted on issues of openness, since he himself is stating he is secret.  Further, he suggests "tax payers [...] should be made public."  This suggests that you, ordinary solid citizens all, should have publically visible lives while scientists remain secret?  I think not.

Then, this supposed professor of openness says "Most of all, [...] keeping [sic] the inner workings of science secret!".  Okay, we get it, you want to keep it secret yet are arguing for open notebook science.  Seems a bit of a conflict, really?

He doesn't want to just share your data, he wants to enslave you, only under the guise of 'sharing.  "as Kindergarten might tell you, sharing is good. [...] we could have patented [...] a podcaster that you happen to take a fancy too… and you end up having names like comet Shoemaker-Levy 9".  Patenting people then naming they as numbers?  Sheer lunacy!

You could argue I'm taking quotes out of context.  To know for sure, you'll have to check the original article.  But isn't that the point of open notebook science-- that the best path to accuracy is to provide all your original source material?
you can buy these fine open notebooks at!
Until next week,
Tuesdays at The Satellite Diaries and weekly at The Daytime Astronomer (twitter @skyday)