Opasnet slogans

This page is a encyclopedia article. The page identifier is Op_en3232
Moderator:Jouni (see all)
Upload data {{#opasnet_base_link:Op_en3232}}

Opasnet slogans are short descriptions of some important properties or purposes of Opasnet and open assessment.

Slogans for Opasnet

• Policy discussions using the rules of science.
• Poliittista keskustelua tieteen säännöin.
• Ajatusten kilpailu on sallittava.
• Vanhojen tietojen julkaiseminen ei ole tutkijalle noloa.
• On tärkeää julkaista myös virheellisiä käsityksiä, jotta ne voidaan julkisesti kumota.
• Jos politiikassa päädytään puhumaan henkilöistä, keskustelu on ajautunut sivuraiteelle.
• Perusteltu kritiikki on huomioitava.
• Justified criticism must be taken into account.
• Hienointa tutkimuksessa on, että onnistuu esittämään hypoteesin, jota kukaan ei saa kumotuksi. Toiseksi hienointa on kumota hypoteesi, jota kukaan muu ei ollut saanut kumotuksi. Kolmanneksi hienointa ovat kaverit. Neljänneksi hienointa on, että tutkimustyön tekeminen on kivaa ja haastavaa. Viidenneksi - no, muu on joutavaa.
• Opasnet on ainoa asiallinen vaalikone - muut ovat henkilöllisiä.
• Opasnet - the wikipedia of decisions - Decisionpedia.
• Opasnet - päätösten wikipedia - Päätöspedia.
• Knowledge is cooperation. All knowledge is a synthesis by a group about what explanations are acceptable in the light of current observations and reasoning.
• All knowledge is just knowledge. You can use the same information tools and procedures to manage any piece of knowledge.
• Tiede on avointa kritiikkiä ja uusien ideoiden esittämistä. Demokratia on avointa kritiikkiä ja uusien ideoiden esittämistä.

  ⇒ Tiede = demokratia.

  ⇒ Jos tuntuu siltä, että nykyään tiede ≠ demokratia, ainakin toista tehdään väärin.

  • Demokratia on siinä mielessä laajempi, että tiede karsii vaihtoehdot (hypoteesit) niin vähiin kuin on mahdollista siinä tilanteessa niillä tiedoilla mitä on. Demokratia joutuu menemään joskus pitemmälle ja valitsemaan hyvien päätösten hypoteesien joukosta vain yhden, jota sitten lähdetään toteuttamaan. Jos tämän yhden valitsemiseen ei tiede anna viimeistä sanaa, käytetään demokratian ei-tieteellisiä keinoja: konsensusta, äänestämistä ja edustuksellista demokratiaa.

• Science is about open criticism and presenting new ideas. Democracy is about open criticism and presenting new ideas.

  ⇒ Science = democracy.

  ⇒ If you feel that nowadays science ≠ democracy, at least the other is done in a wrong way.

  • Democracy is a wider concept and goes beyond science. Science rejects all alternatives (hypotheses) into a minimum that is achievable with the information that is available within that particular situation and context. Democracy must sometimes go beyond that and choose among good decision hypotheses just one that is then implemented. If science does say the last word about which decision hypothesis is the best, then the non-scientific tools of democracy will be used: consensus, voting, and representative democracy.

• All you need science is Opasnet ... and love.
• All you need in Opasnet is science ... and love.
• What you need in love is not only science and Opasnet. Thus, love is the most difficult thing of the three.

• Science is everywhere.
• Opasnet is Opposnet (for the opposition).
• Rules:
  1. Always choose the way of working where it is easier to share openly.
  2. Share immediately, also drafts.
• Knowledge is action. Do not separate the knowledge production and knowledge use from each other. They are always tightly intertwined.
• Tieteen suurin ansio on, että se tarjoaa systemaattisen menetelmän huonojen toimintojen karsimiseksi.
• The greatest achievement of science is that it offers a systematic method to eliminate poor procedures.
• Knowledge users of the world, unite!
• It is stupid to vote on facts.
• Anyone can think.
• Tout le monde peut penser.
• Politiikassa oppiminen on tärkeämpää kuin äänestäminen.
• In policy, it is more important to learn than to vote.
• One stupid can talk more than ten wise men can write to him. (Rationale why it is a good idea to have wiki-MEPs in the Parliament.)
• Policy-making is too serious a business to be left to politicians alone.
• Opasnet is for finding out the truth and utilising that in making good decision.
• Anyone can make science.
• Anyone can create policies.
• Anyone can solve common problems.
• Opasnet - The interface between science, policy, and stakeholders.
• Opasnet - The policy support wiki.
• Opasnet - The wiki for policy influence.
• The main strength of Opasnet is not that it miraculously is able to find out the best possible policy solution, but that it is able to unambiguosly rule out some of the worst policy solutions that are being promoted.
• Opasnet brings falsification to policy.
• "Share, fight, and enjoy" (Science is about sharing what you know, fight for your hypotheses and against others' hypotheses, and enjoying this process)
• Opasnet is the world's largest web workspace for making science and policy.
• Se, joka noudattaa politiikan logiikkaa, voi päästä poliitikoksi. Se, joka noudattaa tieteen logiikkaa, voi päästä valtiomieheksi.
• Knowledge users of the world, unite!
• The most powerful force of the human being is adaptability. Therefore, he adapts even when things should be changed instead.

Slogans for Heande (Opasnet project site)

• Read it here. Use it here. Publish it together. (This means that people are encouraged to read and use information they see in Heande. They are encouraged to collaborate with other researchers using Heande. But always when someone wants to publish anything from Heande, he/she must negotiate with everyone involved in developing that piece of information. You are not allowed to take information and use it elsewhere without an explicit permission from the Heande community.)

Jokes

A man walked on the ice of a lake. The ice broke down and the man fell into the cold water. The man shouted for help. A researcher walked by. He heard the voice, saw the man, and ran away. A politician walked by. He heard the voice, saw the man, and ran away. A citizen was also walking by. He just went on walking. Fortunately, the man was able to get out of the water by himself. He sued the three men for not helping him. The judge asked: "Why did you not help this man although you saw that he was in danger?" The researcher said: "Your assumption is not true. I immediately ran to my office to apply funding for a research project about the best methods to rescue people from ice." The politician said: "It is just a media hunt to say that I did not help. I ran to my committee meeting and suggested a raise to the budget of the fire brigade." The citizen said: "Well, I wanted to help. But I saw that the politician already was there, so I knew that the situation was hopeless."

A researcher, a politician, and a citizen were arguing about who could make the best decisions. They decided about a competition. The task was to design a house. The researcher built a model for a supercomputer and optimised for the energy efficiency, anti-theft security, and controllability of the technical infrastructure by a remote control. He lost the competition, because the house did not have doors and windows. The politician went to the Parliament coffee room for an interior decoration magazine and put all features he saw on the magazine to his house. He lost the competition, because it did not have a roof. The citizen did not show up. Afterwards, the researcher and the politician asked the citizen, why he had given up. The citizen said: "What! I didn't know I could participate myself because it was not the election day."

Miscellaneous

• It is not enough to prepare our children for the world; We must also prepare the world for our children. - Luis J. Rodriguez
• It is possible to imagine a world where everyone gets what rightfully belongs to them based on their own deeds, and where all sins are fairly punished. However, when we observe the real world, we can inevitably see that it is fortunately not such a cruel place.
• The whole existing culture is given to us for free, without any credit from ourselves. Therefore, whatever we achieve, is almost entirely dependent on what we have received from others. How could we demand credit for that? At least, not based on justice. Therefore, we are obliged to give for free things that we have been given for free. We cannot pay back what we have received; we must pay it forward.