You argue that open software is science, which is not at all the same as claiming that science is software. ("is" in this context is not equivalence -- "a poodle is a dog" != "a dog is a poodle".)

▲

jegp 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I agree the post is muddy about whether the relationship is bijective (equivalent, poodle=dog) or injective (onto, poodle is a dog). I make it slightly more precise in the statement "I posit that open source software is a necessary condition if we are to science in a computerized world". That's where the "is" comes from in the title. Throughout history, this definitely has not been the case. I'm arguing that's changing.

▲

jibal 4 hours ago | parent [-]

It's not just "muddy", it's thoroughly inconsistent and impenetrable (which probably has a lot to do with why there is so little engagement here). You say "TL;DR I claim that modern science is synonymous with open source software" which is radically different from your "slightly more precise" statement.

I won't put any more time into this ... good luck in figuring out what it is you really want to claim and presenting a coherent and cogent argument for it.

	▲	jegp 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Thanks for the well wishes