Skip to content

Science 2.0

Hey, look, who would have known we would get science 2.0? We are in an egotistical era where we think we’re only up to version 2.0 in science. What was Aristotle – Beta? Oh wait, I know, Copernicus was .5, Bacon was .7, and Newton was 1.0. Einstein was 1.5. How fortuitous that I exist in the official 2.0 era of science.
Sarcasm aside – the article does provide a short look at how scientific research is becoming more open and more collaborative. It’s just the “2.0′izing of everything” that causes me to briefly rant about once a month.

One Comment

  1. Guy Boulet wrote:

    Another 2.0, like if science had just been reinvented. It seems that as soon as we start to collaborate online to do something it becomes 2.0. In my mind, although the 2.0 concept is quite evident as it refers to socialisation through electronic networks, simply adding a 2.0 to a word is simply a sign of intellectual laziness. Why not try to define these new concepts by giving them significant names rather than make them 2.0.

    Web 2.0 should be called Social Web, Learning 2.0 should be Networked Learning. For Science 2.0, I’m not familiar enough with the concept, but it would probably be defined better by a significant name than by a 2.0.

    We should stop this intellectual laziness and call thing by their name.

    Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 7:50 am | Permalink