| |
|
A proposed adaptation of Open Science, focusing on guidelines for knowledge claims
(This is a slightly edited reprint of an article published by the author in SGR Newsletter, No 26, February 2003, pp 17 - 8)
By the phrase Open Knowledge I mean a certain
schema that defines a standard of openness of knowledge. The central element
of the schema is a set of guidelines for those who would participate in the
generation of OK. A sketch of the guidelines is given below. Knowledge claims
conforming to the guidelines would be published on the World Wide Web. Such
a publication must provide ready access to supporting evidence and arguments
for its claims. Criticism and testing of the claims should be made as easy as
possible. The OK proposal is an adaptation, to the broader field of knowledge-in-general,
of the Open Science proposal, which I have described elsewhere, for example
in SGR Newsletter 21, Autumn 2000, pp 8 - 9, and on the Open Science page of this site. Criticism As
Well As Dissemination This meaning of Open
Knowledge differs from a meaning that has recently become widely
used. If one makes a web search on the phrase 'open knowledge'
one gets many hits and they relate to free access to knowledge
but are not specially concerned with the question 'when should
knowledge claims be accepted as knowledge?' Open Knowledge in this article means something more, for it is
not enough to have an excellent means of disseminating knowledge
if audiences have inadequate means of critically judging what is
made available. Instead of taking knowledge as a given, and just
considering how it can be most widely disseminated, I focus first
on the knowledge claim. Someone asserts or reports something.
What structure can best aid critical judgement by audiences? In science, criticism and testing of claims are fundamental.
In the Open Science proposal, I make the case for some scientific
projects to be done in a radically open manner - open from
beginning (proposals to ethics committee and to funding body) to
end (archiving of conclusions) - in conformity with an Open
Science Protocol. Knowledge-in-general is produced in a much less
formal way than is scientific knowledge. The project-oriented
Open Science Protocol is too formal to be helpful in attempts to
promote the Open Knowledge concept. Nevertheless, two central
features of science, publication and criticism, are applicable
also to the generation of knowledge. (Here, 'publication' is
understood in a generalised sense, 'making public'.) Publication
and criticism are the key to the transition from a knowledge
claim (which can be as wacky as may be) to knowledge (which must
be amenable to criticism and have gained a significant degree of
public acceptance). For establishing an appropriate standard of openness for
knowledge-in-general, as opposed to scientific knowledge,
guidelines, and not a protocol, are needed. Sketch Of The
Guidelines I: Refutation - the initial claim and all subsequent comments should be
amenable to discussion. The main points made should be supported
by an appropriate mixture of argumentation, evidence and
references. There should be no avoidable obstacles to
modification or refutation of the claim II: Technical Means - the initial claim should be launched in a formal way, that
is, stated to be part of the Open Knowledge schema. The OK
Guidelines would be published with the initial claim - the initial claim should be widely accessible. This means
that it should be published on the World Wide Web, using the
simplest and most widely available IT standards adequate for the
needed communications. These standards should be, as far as
possible, compatible with older software and printer-friendly - the web presentation of the initial claim should include an
easy-to-use means whereby comments and additions can be added, so
that the whole comprises a discussion thread - subsequent contributions should, as far as possible, follow
the formats of the initial claim, so that the resultant thread is
easy to use - the thread should be durable, an archiving process being
part of the initial publication III: Knowtiquette - all contributions should aim to promote the production of
critically tested knowledge. Robust criticism of the knowledge
claim should be encouraged. Censure and disparagement should be
avoided, as should personal comments (positive or negative) IV: Democracy - anyone presenting a knowledge claim conforming to sections I
to III above should be treated by others as having presented a
valid knowledge claim and be accorded a respectful but critical
hearing V: No Closure and No Gateway - an OK thread has a beginning but no formally declared end.
The aim of the contributions is to add to humanity's stock of
reliable knowledge, while recognising the incomplete and
provisional nature of all knowledge - at no stage is a knowledge claim formally declared to have
become knowledge. Accepting a knowledge claim to be knowledge
remains forever the prerogative of each individual. In practice,
however, wide public consenses often do emerge. The Role Of
The Open Knowledge Schema Knowledge-in-general is generated as part of the totality of
human discourse. Threads conforming to the schema here proposed
would constitute but a minute fraction of humanity's knowledge
production. I suggest that this minute fraction would
nevertheless influence knowledge as a whole, because it would
draw attention to the difference between knowledge claims and
knowledge, and would clarify the nature of that difference. Alan Cottey To
Science Policy Send correspondence about the web-site to webmanager@sgr.org.uk This page last modified: 11th June 2004
To Democratic Science
To Open Science
To Science Funding
To Towards a Convention on Knowledge
© SGR 1997-2004
