Can it be?

In my presentation on Thursday I brought up the idea of "I want to help" vs. "This cannot be."  I really like this ideology by Thomas Clark (it's not actually a quote by him, just a summary of this thoughts).  I used it in regards to openness, but there is a great variety of issues in which it could be used.  These issues can range from a long wait in a supermarket check-out line to the barbaric practice of slavery.  I will therefore be somewhat general at times in talking about these mindsets.


I feel with this ideology, there really is an option.  Not all issues will be nor should be answered with "This cannot be."  It is not the go-to answer.  It is a personal responsibility to evaluate whether support is appropriate and to evaluate which mindset is appropriate.  The issues that are answered with "This cannot be" are ones in which the a current characteristic of society is unacceptable compared to potential alternatives.

The analogy I think of for this, which was not actually all that controversial, is the initial usage of tin cans in the early 19th century.  The tin can was one of the great inventions of this period that even now has widespread usage.  Its obvious use was to increase food preservation efficiency, and the first tin can was patented in 1810, yet the first can opener was patented in 1858.  For decades, tin cans were opened with knives, chisels, or through other creative manners.  Yes, people could get their cans open, but why would anyone hack at a can with a knife when they could use something as simple as a can opener?  In this analogy the "I want to help" mindset would be to realize how hard it is to efficiently open cans and react by becoming good at opening cans with a knife.  The "this cannot be" mindset would be to realize that there has got to be an easier way and seeking for the way to do so.  I recognize that this is only one of the many ways


Both mindsets can potentially be supportive of revolution, but the "this cannot be's" tend to be the real leaders and pushers of movements.  These are those who stick it to the man.  But, are these revolutionaries anything without the "helpers" of the cause?  And when do the helpers become merely blind followers rather than reserved supporters?  


Revolution is word with a large range of possible connotations.  It can be perfectly noble or utterly wicked.  This reminds me too easily of the Matthew 7:18&20
          
           18: A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.  
          20: Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.


This ideally is what our mindsets and support against or for a movement must be based.  Yet, in many debates there is seemingly not a more righteous side to argue.   It then requires a conscientious effort to inform oneself enough about issues to make an informed opinion. 


In terms of open science, I do not have enough of an expertise to officially declare which of the two mindsets I have toward the idea, although I am for it.  My support of it includes the recognition that open science can be carried out well, and it can be carried out not so well.  I feel however that open science carried out well outperforms private scientific research that is carried out well.  The reservations associated with open science are legitimate ones, but they are possible to overcome.


I want to end with a semi-related excerpt that to me illustrates the nature of scientific research:  "Ultimately, if the researcher succeeds, a flood of colleagues will pave roads over the path laid, and those roads will be orderly and straight, taking an investigator in minutes to a place the pioneer spent months or years looking for."  (The Great Influenza, John M. Barry)