Cyberplatonism: An inadequate constitution for the republic of science

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Proceeding from the standpoint of the historical sociology and political economy of knowledge production, I provide an extended critique of Stevan Harnad's “PostGutenberg” utopia of “paperless publishing” on the Internet. After dubbing Hamad's utopia “Cyberplatonism, “ I divide its problems into two issues: (1) Does the Internet approximate the frictionless medium of thought traditionally sought by Platonists? (2) Does the peer review system offer an adequate model of how such a medium would enable inquirers to get at the Truth? Whereas Harnad argues yes to both questions, I argue no. In response to (1), I question Harnad's characterization of Internet publication as cost‐free and paperless, noting his failure to take into account the hidden institutional costs of maintaining electronic communication networks, especially during a time of increased network privatization. I also criticize Harnad's attempt to scapegoat the publishing industry for its supposed failure to realize the “esoteric” character of most academic publishing. At this point, I start to address (2), arguing that, by operating with standards that are orthogonal to academic ones, publishers have traditionally checked the more conservative tendencies of the peer review system. Moreover, it is not clear exactly which features of the peer review system would be worth transferring to the Internet. I diagnose Harnad's enthusiasm for peer review as resulting from his general satisfaction with current academic hierarchies and resource allocation mechanisms. In principle, the Internet threatens to upset the status quo, which would ironically enable a purer form of Cyberplatonism to flourish. I conclude by briefly considering that prospect.

This publication has 3 references indexed in Scilit: