Did the professionalization of science — people could make a living doing science — cause harm because although more science was done scientists — the professional ones — were no longer free to pursue the truth in any direction? Because their jobs and status were at stake? It’s plausible. Recall that Mendel and Darwin were amateurs. A more recent example is Alister Hardy, the Oxford professor who conceived the aquatic ape theory of evolution. He didn’t pursue it because he feared loss of reputation. The more sophisticated conclusion, I suppose, isn’t that professionalization was bad but that loss of diversity was bad. We need both amateur and professional scientists because each can do stuff the other can’t. Right now we only have professional ones. No one encourages amateur science; there is no way they can publish their work. (Unless, like Elaine Morgan, who wrote several books about the aquatic ape theory, you’re a professional writer.)
These thoughts were prompted by this remarkable blog post, which has nothing to do with science. What an amazing piece of writing, I thought. I don’t even agree with it, and here I am staring at it. A work of genius? No, lots of blog posts are really good. This one was merely better than most. Would something this brazen and effective appear in any major magazine, newspaper, TV show, radio ad, etc.? No, not even. Do we realize that, all these years, stuff like this has been missing from our media consumption? No, we don’t. Before there was news, there was gossip, I realized; news (such as newspapers) was a kind of professionalization of gossip. The blog post I admired was a bit of riveting creative gossip. Blogs are just new-fangled gossip. Bloggers are endlessly scandalized, indignant, judgmental, just as gossips are. Just as gossip is usually “passed on,” most blog posts have links and many posts consist almost entirely of “passing on” something. Just as gossip can be anything, bloggers can say what they really think, as Tyler Cowen pointed out. That’s why they’re so successful, so easy to write and read. Gossip is good for our mental ecology, just as science is. Mark Liberman’s Language Log blog is a blend of (good) gossip and science; as you can see from my interview with him, it filled a gap. I hope blogs will provide a kind of support structure on which amateur science can grow.
“bloggers can say what they really think”
Depends. I could easily create a few blogposts that might end your career if you posted them under your name. That’s why I use a pseudonym. As it happens, I’ve never posted anything that most people would find strongly objectionable (I think), but I like having the freedom to not even have to think about whether a post might be bad for my career.
Still, blog authors have a high degree of freedom to write what they want, but I don’t think that is the main reason that I read more blogs than professional sites on a typical day; I think the main factor is sheer mass. The main reason you can find blogs you like is the same reason you can find a forum for people that get sexually aroused by bird feathers or whatever: There’s just lots out there.
Gossip is more primal than news. It is fundamental to our species’ ability to grow beyond small bands in which everyone knew each other. Gossip and the prefrontal cortex are inextricably linked — it is where we store our stories about who we are, who we’re ideally supposed to be, and who others are. That lobe is where society and politics live, and gossip is the data that fills that lobe. “Does he do his share? Can he be trusted? Who are his allies and his enemies?” If we know these answers about strangers, there is no limit to our society’s size. And we know how to behave in a way that keeps us from being destroyed.
It’s been said, and subsequently disproven, that tools are what make us human. I would argue that gossip makes us human. Even crows use tools. Humans use gossip.