What if there was a library which held every book? Not every book on sale, or every important book, or even every book in English, but simply every book - a key part of our planet's cultural legacy.
Aaron SwartzRead
But like all power, there are those who want to keep it for themselves. The world's entire scientific and cultural heritage, published over centuries in books and journals, is increasingly being digitized and locked up by a handful of private corporations. Want to read the papers featuring the most famous results of the sciences? You'll need to send enormous amounts to publishers like Reed Elsevier.
Interpretation
This quote highlights the issue of access to scientific knowledge and the monopolization of information by corporations.
Aaron Swartz emphasizes the growing concern over the control of scientific and cultural knowledge by a few powerful entities. He argues that, while the wealth of information has been built over centuries, it is increasingly locked away behind costly paywalls, limiting access for the general public and undermining the very essence of knowledge sharing that drives progress and innovation.
In practice
In a speech on open access, one could use this quote to highlight the importance of free knowledge.
What if there was a library which held every book? Not every book on sale, or every important book, or even every book in English, but simply every book - a key part of our planet's cultural legacy.
Without the ability to talk about government power, there's no way for citizens to make sure this power isn't being misused.
Large corporations, of course, are blinded by greed. The laws under which they operate require it - their shareholders would revolt at anything less.
We need to download scientific journals and upload them to file-sharing networks.
Think deeply about things. Don’t just go along because that’s the way things are or that’s what your friends say. Consider the effects, consider the alternatives, but most importantly, just think.
Information is power. But like all power, there are those who want to keep it for themselves.
What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
In order to shake a hypothesis, it is sometimes not necessary to do anything more than push it as far as it will go.
Science attempts to find logic and simplicity in nature. Mathematics attempts to establish order and simplicity in human thought.
When it comes to how neuroscience could help the wider public, the worst thing is when we make advances in, say, mindfulness, and then decide that everybody can potentially think their way to curing themselves or develop their own psycho-neuro-immune mechanisms for boosting cancer defenses.
If we do discover more than one type of life on Earth, we can be fairly certain that the universe is teeming with it, for it would be inconceivable that life started twice here but never on all the other earth-like planets.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.