We are scientists. We don’t blog. We don’t twitter. We take our time....
Science needs time to think. Science needs time to read, and time to fail. Science does not always know what it might be at right now. Science develops unsteadily, with jerky moves and unpredictable leaps forward—at the same time, however, it creeps about on a very slow time scale, for which there must be room and to which justice must be done.
Slow science was pretty much the only science conceivable for hundreds of years; today, we argue, it deserves revival and needs protection. Society should give scientists the time they need, but more importantly, scientists must take their time.
We do need time to think. We do need time to digest. We do need time to mis understand each other, especially when fostering lost dialogue between humanities and natural sciences. We cannot continuously tell you what our science means; what it will be good for; because we simply don’t know yet. Science needs time.
I need to talk to these guys.
Poetic, yes. But it seems completely non-controversial - that's just how scientific research works, right?
Posted by: Genebecker | 07/30/2011 at 01:08 AM
But... You need a blog to say that you don't blog ;) #paradox
Posted by: SylvieTissot | 07/30/2011 at 01:38 AM
More controversial than non-scientists might believe. Today's rat race in science doesn't leave much room for 'slow science'.
Posted by: Thomas | 07/30/2011 at 08:24 AM
Cf the slow science concept with Ragnar Granit's concept of understanding: http://www.corporeality.net/museion/2011/06/18/impatient-discovery-vs-mature-understanding-revisiting-ragnar-granits-view-of-the-goal-of-scientific-work/
Posted by: Thomas | 07/30/2011 at 02:20 PM