Jim,The fact that an email mentioning a statistical "trick" for analyzing the climate data caused a brouhaha was inane. As a scientist, i have no problem saying a trick - beit computational or experimental - solved a problem because no one in a scientific audience would interpret that word to mean anything other than some slight cleverness to achieve a goal. To the Luddites, a trick is a lie and therefore the scientists are using lies.
It is not elitist in this atmosphere to be concerned about what people who deliberately twist words will do with comments in the code. The fact is that we live in an anti-scientific world where the severe exercise of reason (i.e. science) is displaced by gut feelings and other idiotic nonsequitirs by the obscuratum. As far as professionalism goes, as long as the code produces scientifically valid results, the content of comments should not be a concern to anyone.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Jim Kress ccl_nospam*o*kressworks.com <owner-chemistry-.-ccl.net> wrote:
Oh yeah. We can’t let the great unwashed masses view our code. They are so dumb. We might be embarrassed. /sarcasm
That kind of elitist attitude is why many people have lost faith in the Science that is being promulgated today. Elitism has no place in Science. We are supposed to be professionals, not oracles.
If you are ashamed of the whimsy you place in the comments in the code, then don’t put it there. Perhaps exposure to the public will lead to more professionalism in what we produce.
Jim Kress
From: owner-chemistry+ccl_nospam==kressworks.com(a)ccl.net [mailto:owner-chemistry+ccl_nospam==kressworks.com(a)ccl.net] On Behalf Of Mark Zottola mzottola{=}gmail.com
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 9:09 PM
To: Kress, Jim
Subject: CCL: Science code manifesto
For all our concerns about the impact of this manifesto on science, I think most are missing what I believe to be an important aspect. If a code is readily available for the scientific public, then it is readily available to the general public. As one area mentioned in the manifesto was climate modeling, it is clear that enterprising non-scientists or muck-raking types can access these codes.
In any well-commented code, there are bound to comments like "applying the Fandoozie trick" or other such innocucous statements. In addition, in any code of over 1000 lines there are bound to be bugs. Can you imagine the public discourse when some rabel-rouser claims the software for climate modeling is flawed and he shows the offending code as "proof". Flaws and "tricks", common to all software, have the potential to be exploited for political gain under this manifesto.
I'm not sure where the middle ground is when trying to make software open, accessible, and maintaining peer review without the introduction of politics. I think this needs a lot more thought and consideration.
Mark Zottola