The Open Science Journey encourages others to collaborate and contribute when research data, lab notes, and other research processes are open access, with conditions that allow research to be reused, disseminated, and replicated. All research is based on prior knowledge, especially the best confirmed hypotheses. (One of the many problems with methodology is precisely what criteria are used to decide whether a particular hypothesis can be considered reasonably confirmed, that is, whether the weight given to it by inductive and other bases is sufficient to maintain it.) In addition, research is conducted according to rules and techniques that have proven themselves in the past, but are constantly refined not only in the light of new experiences, but also on the basis of the results of mathematical and philosophical investigations. One of the procedural rules of evidence-based science is that relevant variables (or those suspected of being sensitive) must be changed sequentially. After the disorder and fluidity of appearances, factual science discovers the regular patterns of structure and the process of being and becoming. It should be noted that the term theory is quite easily used in everyday language when it is said: This is just a “theory” or also: My “theory” on such a question is as follows (i.e. or can be a statement or conjecture without objective evidence; therefore, it is not a theory as it is understood in the field of science). The term theory should not be used as a synonym for hypotheses because it is false. The meaning of scientific terms must be clear; This work attempts to contribute to this lofty goal. For its elaboration, it was necessary to rely on several sources of the highest recognition, in particular the work of Mario Bunge (1919-), Argentine physicist and philosopher of science, professor at the University of Buenos Aires; and Luis Romo-Saltos (1925-2014), physicist-chemist and connoisseur of the philosophy of science, was a famous professor and researcher at the Central University of Ecuador and ESPE.

According to Mario Bunge, scientific knowledge is factual, transcendent, analytical, specialized, clear and precise, communicable, verifiable, methodological, systematic, general, legal, explanatory, predictive, open and useful. These attributes are explained below: Romo-Saltos highlights the structure and origin of scientific knowledge as a product of the community of men and women of science: “Science is a conceptual and social system. It is claimed to be conceptual because its components at the abstract level are the concepts and sentences that logically relate to each other to form the hypothetical deductive system. Science is at the same time a social system because of its close relationship with the development of humanity, because science needs the help of man in relation to other people who make up the scientific community. Human knowledge is very broad and diverse, but scientific knowledge is different from other types of knowledge because it stems from agreement and consensus among scientists, it develops from previous discoveries and knowledge – because knowledge is not created de novo. This is knowledge that is rigorously tested; it is cumulative and universal, it is not the heritage of a country or a human group; It is a good in itself, it has had and has innumerable applications that constitutes science, which applies to the concrete problems of individual and social life. Science seeks the systematic organization of knowledge of reality. It explains the facts and phenomena of nature; He formulates laws and general theories with which he tries to explain them all why observed facts and events occur, since science is not limited to describing them. More than 30 scientists, activists and open science practitioners from the region have accepted the invitation of Fundación Karisma, Centro de Internet y Sociedad de la Universidad del Rosario (ISUR) and the Biodiversity Information System (SiB Colombia) to start a dialogue on how we want to shape open science policy in Latin America.

For the reasons that I will explain later for your critical consideration, I do not share the positions that postulate radically different conditions for obtaining scientific citizenship between the natural and social sciences – also called human sciences. Nor its adjectival forms: hard/soft or “dry” sciences and social “sciences”. I consider these dichotomies to be untenable today, and it seems appropriate to recall Weber`s efforts in this regard, undertaken nearly a century ago, which added to their undisputed achievements the contribution of genetic constructivism to reorganize its conclusions and attempt to overcome – overcome – the repeated limits of dichotomies. Without unfounded demarcations, the horizon of epistemological reflection is wider and divisible between the different sciences, outside artificial borders, useless walls that prevent communication. The communication of the results and techniques of science not only improves general education, but also increases the possibilities for their confirmation or refutation. Independent verification offers the highest technical and moral guarantees and is now possible in many areas at the international level. For this reason, scientists regard scientific secrecy as the enemy of scientific progress; The policy of scientific secrecy is indeed the most effective author of stagnation in culture, technology and the economy, as well as a source of moral corruption. “Science is not the knowledge of things, but of their relations” (Henri Poincaré, French mathematician). 9) Scientific knowledge is systematic: A science is not an aggregate of separate information, but a system of logically connected ideas.

Any system of ideas characterized by a particular set of fundamental (but refutable) assumptions that attempts to conform to a class of facts is a theory. Each chapter of a particular science contains theories or systems of ideas that are logically related, that is, they are ordered by the “implicit” relationship. This connection between ideas can be described as organic, in the sense that the replacement of one of the basic assumptions causes a radical change in the theory or group of theories. The basis of a given theory is not a set of facts, but a set of principles or hypotheses of a certain degree of generality (and therefore of a certain logical fecundity). Conclusions (or theorems) can be drawn from principles, either in natural form or using special techniques involving mathematical operations. c) Science defines most of its concepts: some of them are defined by indefinite or primitive concepts, others implicitly, i.e. by the function they play in a theoretical system (contextual definition). The definitions are conventional, but they are not chosen in a capricious way: they must be comfortable and fruitful. (What`s the point, for example, of giving a special name to freckled girls who study engineering and weigh more than 50 kg?) Once a definition has been chosen, the remaining speech must remain faithful to you if you want to avoid inconsistencies; (d) Science creates artificial languages by inventing symbols (words, mathematical signs, chemical symbols, etc.; meanings are attributed to these signs determined by rules of designation (e.g. “in this context, H denotes the element of the unit atomic weight”).

The basic symbols will be as simple as possible, but they can be combined according to certain rules to form configurations as complex as necessary (the laws of combination of signs involved in the generation of complex expressions are called educational rules); (e) Science is always trying to measure and record phenomena.