The secret of a science,can be finding the right method to prove a theory, and establishing the details, so there is a variable and a control. The more input and alternative viewpoints that can be considered, the quicker criteria can be honed, and various parallel research strings can be run with a central tally of the information.
The question of science 2.0 impact goes beyond method, and begs a clarification of the purpose of science, the practices of science which mean the most accurate and credible results. and the big question. Can people know too much? No they can't.
There seems to be the implication that scientific research is beyond the average person, when the average person is jus...

The secret of a science,can be finding the right method to prove a theory, and establishing the details, so there is a variable and a control. The more input and alternative viewpoints that can be considered, the quicker criteria can be honed, and various parallel research strings can be run with a central tally of the information.
The question of science 2.0 impact goes beyond method, and begs a clarification of the purpose of science, the practices of science which mean the most accurate and credible results. and the big question. Can people know too much? No they can't.
There seems to be the implication that scientific research is beyond the average person, when the average person is just as likely to be a scientist.
Science can be presented in a manner that is not user friendly. Research can be reported in terms that are understood by someone with a degree, but all that can be needed is a colloquial translation. Very often things aren't as hard to understand if spoken in 'plain english,' the principle can follow for most langages
2.0 can be a babel fish.
However risky it may be will not compare to the regret of not trying.,