\documentclass{article}
\usepackage[affil-it]{authblk}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
\usepackage{url}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\hypersetup{colorlinks=false,pdfborder={0 0 0}}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\@combinedblfloats{\box\@outputbox}{\unvbox\@outputbox}{}{%
  \errmessage{\noexpand\@combinedblfloats could not be patched}%
}%
\makeatother
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[english]{babel}




\begin{document}

\title{A Git History and Philosophy of Science}


\author{Jeff Montgomery}
\affil{Affiliation not available}



\date{\today}

\maketitle




On the left, you'll see a little clock icon - this opens the article's \textbf{History}: a \href{http://blog.jondh.me.uk/2011/07/worlds-shortest-git-primer/}{Git}-based log of updates and edits authors have applied to the article.  This post should hopefully only have one entry as it's short and typed in one sitting (\textit{edit: this is never the case}), but \href{https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/1b/bb/5e/1bbb5eec0edf9f9fd59640d280fa7aba.jpg}{we} \href{http://meetville.com/images/quotes/Quotation-Niels-Bohr-science-mistakes-Meetville-Quotes-159439.jpg}{all} \href{http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-science-my-lad-is-made-up-of-mistakes-but-they-are-mistakes-which-it-is-useful-to-make-because-jules-verne-190206.jpg}{make} \href{http://refe99.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/quote-Adam-Savage-in-the-spirit-of-science-there-really-43681.png}{mistakes}.

Two interesting ideas to meditate on, w.r.t. science and scholarly communication:\\
1.) What would a Git history look like for an entire piece of research, or even just the many iterations of a single experimental procedure?  GitHub does this for software development of course (we can \href{https://www.authorea.com/users/3/articles/17235/_show_article}{integrate} your articles with your GitHub repos by the way), but there's a whole untapped academic ecosystem - how do thoughts mature and develop in other fields?\\
2.) If you had a \textit{Git History of Science}, there would be so many re-additions and re-deletions and entire huge sections removed (\href{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory}{phlogiston}, anyone?), Compare views would be a wash of green and red. How many "mistakes" have been made and re-made over time? What could we learn from the trends and developments of knowledge?

\textbf{Science is really a process and a way of thinking}. Why aren't we keeping better track of the thought process and showing errors made along the way? It would help us build or \href{https://www.authorea.com/users/6973/articles/8213/_show_article}{fork} better off each others' works for one thing. Less redundancies and unnecessary pitfalls as well.  Plus "mistakes" are a helpful and fateful force in the scientific process itself. Think about any great thinker, writer, artist, maker. I bet any of their rough drafts would seem pretty valuable now.

In what other ways might we benefits from having detailed histories of inventive, creative, and thoughtful processes?

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\end{CJK}\end{document}

