Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg
Newton deliberately declined to write for a mass audience:
|
In the good old times of Newton, only a few could read and write.
Therefore it was easy to direct your writings to a target or to avoid another target.
One could say the same things about hermeutics or (free)masons or any other secret societies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg
Without copyright, specialists would still write articles in an attempt to convince other specialists that they should get tenure, and just for the joy of advancing science.
|
That's not really true. There is a coincidence, there is a superposition, there is a certain incentive (everyone chooses to use whatever means he had at his disposal in the given time period), but there is no causality.
While during newtonian times, the learned wrote to create themselves a "name" (fame), in Einstein times, but even more during our days, most people write to get money (and fame, which bring later on more money). Scientists are obliged to write articles for a limted circle of periodicals, for they need this number in order to fulfil formal requirements for advancing in career or university degree (Ph.D). There is so much "noise" that was published since copyrights were used in comercial purpose like no other in the history, in fact millions of articles each year, useless information, uselees for everybody else than the author. Where are the Humboldt's times, when the word of the day was: "prepare the communication/article, leave it in the drawer for at least 5 years, dig it out, re-read it (with other eyes, now), then see if it's worth, and publish it, in the amended form." Open
Nature and see how many aerticles end with "future researches will [be needed to] prove the conclusions set forth" or similar.