Two studies suggest trouble ahead for paywall journals (Update)

August 8, 2017 by Bob Yirka report
Credit: Charles Rondeau/public domain

(Phys.org)—Two independent studies looking at two aspects of paywalls versus free access to research papers suggest that trouble may lie ahead for traditional journals that continue to expect payment for access to peer-reviewed research papers. In the first study, a small team of researchers from the U.S. and Germany looked at the number of freely available papers on the internet using a web extension called Unpaywall—users enter information and the extension lists sources online for free. In the second study, a team with members from Canada, the U.S. and Germany looked at the popularity of a website known as Sci-Hub that collects and freely distributes research papers. Both groups have written papers describing their studies and results and have uploaded them to the PeerJ Preprints server.

Free access to is a hot topic in the research community, perhaps indicating coming changes to the status quo. The traditional model, in which a researcher pays for the privilege of reading published articles on journal sites like Science and Nature in order to cite work by others, is under fire. Many have claimed the system is unfair to those who cannot afford to pay such fees. Meanwhile, journal sites maintain their stance that the only way they can continue to exist as profitable entities is to charge access fees. They note also that they provide a valuable service—peer review. In these two new efforts, the researchers with both teams hint that the argument may soon become moot, as people who want to read research papers for free find easier access.

In the first paper, the researchers worked with the team that makes the Unpaywall extension to get statistics on its use. They report finding that nearly half (45 percent) of all of the papers that people searched for using the app in 2015 were available for free. They also report that overall, users were able to find free versions of 47 percent of articles they were looking for.

In the second , the researchers worked with the team behind Sci-Hub, which many have described as a pirating site. They report that visitors could access 85 percent of articles that were still behind a paywall. They found also that the percentage was even higher for papers held behind Elsevier paywalls. They note that the team at Sci-Hub told them that efforts to shut down their site through legal means have resulted in free press, increasing its user base—a term they described as the "Streisand Effect"—after Barbra Streisand, who famously tried to stop distribution of aerial photographs of her home several years ago, inadvertently exposing the photographs to many more people.

Explore further: Paywall browser extension lets users read some paywalled papers for free

More information: Himmelstein DS, Romero AR, McLaughlin SR, Greshake Tzovaras B, Greene CS. (2017) Sci-Hub provides access to nearly all scholarly literature. PeerJ Preprints 5:e3100v1 doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.3100v1 , peerj.com/preprints/3100v1/

Piwowar H, Priem J, Larivière V, Alperin JP, Matthias L, Norlander B, Farley A, West J, Haustein S. (2017) The State of OA: A large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles. PeerJ Preprints 5:e3119v1 doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.3119v1 , peerj.com/preprints/3119/

Related Stories

Study reveals most impactful neuroscience research

July 21, 2017

A study of the 100 most-cited neuroscience articles has revealed that 78 of these papers cover five topics, including neurological disorders, the prefrontal cortex, brain connectivity, brain mapping and methodology studies. ...

Recommended for you

New paper answers causation conundrum

November 17, 2017

In a new paper published in a special issue of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, SFI Professor Jessica Flack offers a practical answer to one of the most significant, and most confused questions in evolutionary ...

Chance discovery of forgotten 1960s 'preprint' experiment

November 16, 2017

For years, scientists have complained that it can take months or even years for a scientific discovery to be published, because of the slowness of peer review. To cut through this problem, researchers in physics and mathematics ...

47 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Nbles
5 / 5 (1) Aug 08, 2017
"They note also that they provide a valuable service—peer review"
=> this is the biggest lie the journals keep on selling.

Scientists write the papers. Scientists submit the paper in a format ready to use by the journals. Scientists suggest the reviewers. The reviewers are scientists reviewing FOR FREE. Scientists make all of the corrections. The only things journals still do is layout, and even that scientists have to do more and more themselves. So what is the only reason left for publishing in a paid for journal? The standing and impact factor (IP), that's it. Other than that the journals themselves do squat besides grabbing money from research that in a lot of cases was paid for by tax money. The IP's are important for getting tenure/projects/money... so a scientist has to publish in an as high IP journal as possible. I hope the free journals IPs go up, so that the paid journal obligation doesn't hold true anymore.
EmceeSquared
not rated yet Aug 08, 2017
Nbles:
"They note also that they provide a valuable service—peer review"
=> this is the biggest lie the journals keep on selling.


That is no lie. The peer review service consists of more than the scientists writing the papers and the peers reviewing them. The journals manage that process, ensuring it's completed. The publishing consists of more than just graphical/typographical layout, including the IT that serves to the Internet.

I am not justifying the paywalls. Paywalls interfere with science. And since much of the research is paid for by the public which is investing in not just immediate results but more science in response, the pay for that wall is a perverse incentive to interfere.

But let's not ignore the important service the journals do provide. Many do it without a paywall, financing it in other ways, so it's certainly possible. There should be more funding, whether public or extracted from research institutions, for peer review and publication.
Dingbone
Aug 08, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Nik_2213
5 / 5 (1) Aug 08, 2017
One of the more exasperating features of Phys.Org is when the referenced article lurks behind a pay-wall, but we're not warned...

Sometimes, search-engines can find a pre-print, sometimes a condensed, but open-access version. How do you know what's missing or will be corrected ??

When our local technical library first culled its stock, claiming 'EVERYTHING is available On-Line', I complained that it wasn't. And so it proved. Many reference works did not exist in digital form. None-the-less, the library stopped subscribing to all but core paper journals and, as on-line fees rose and rose, lacked the budget to maintain access to many others.

An 'Amateur Scientist', I cannot afford to buy access to many articles, never mind their cascade of references. Serendipitously, I've found hefty volumes of essential 'Conference Reports' on eg A*z*n, often for a few dollars plus postage. Downside is guilt that my private ownership deprives active students of access to such...
Nbles
5 / 5 (1) Aug 08, 2017
Nbles:
"They note also that they provide a valuable service—peer review"
=> this is the biggest lie the journals keep on selling.


That is no lie. The peer review service consists of more than the scientists writing the papers and the peers reviewing them. The journals manage that process, ensuring it's completed. The publishing consists of more than just graphical/typographical layout, including the IT that serves to the Internet.


I'm afraid I disagree, I have been on both the author and reviewer side and the influence/contribution of the journal in all cases has been minimal. Could you please elaborate on what their added value is to the review process? The "more" as you describe it? If it's just the management of the process and providing a server to download from, personally I think they are overpaid for that. It's not that file-hosting hasn't gotten a lot cheaper over the years. All the new knowledge and creativity comes from the scientists.
EmceeSquared
not rated yet Aug 08, 2017
Nbles:
management of the process and providing a server to download from, personally I think they are overpaid for that. [...] All the new knowledge and creativity comes from the scientists.


The journals might be overpaid for that, but managing the process and operating the publishing site is more than just plugging in a computer. It requires a staff. And like any editorial process it requires organization and followup to get the reviews completed for publication. It requires specialty editorial processing too: first to reject (probably most) submissions for quality problems before sending to reviewers. Then to select the appropriate reviewers. Also managing any proposed changes to the submitter, handling surrounding correspondence and other business matters.

They might be getting paid too much. But publishing peer reviewed papers requires more than the author, the peer and a file server computer.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (2) Aug 08, 2017
This is a fight that has gone on a long time. arXiv was started to open science to everyone, and there are many scientists who use it for this purpose because they believe in open science.

Caponizing free access will never work. It's a lost cause among professional scientists who watched world powers attempt to suppress science, both by communist and capitalist regimes. If this wasn't enough to convince you then you are biased, either by ideology or by profit. Free and equal access is something the scientists themselves get to arbitrate. It's their data. Some third party determining access is tyranny, whether access is determined politically or financially. Science does not thrive under tyranny.

Restriction of scientific data is killing the goose to find out where the golden eggs come from. Take your gold and shut the f_ck up and go the f_ck away and grow the f_ck up.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Aug 08, 2017
I have been on both the author and reviewer side and the influence/contribution of the journal in all cases has been minimal.

I agree. in my experience the editors' extent of help to the author is to provide a template file. All the formatting is done by the author
(when I was still writing stuff they even charged the authors for stuff like color graphs/images instead of black/white...and this was as far as 2012. I don't know if that has changed since. ...and before anyone asks: No, authors don't get any money for their article.).

The editors' help in peer review is limited to selecting reviewers and passing the correspondence (criticisms and updated articles) back and forth until they either decide to publish, not publish, or the author gets fed up and redacts.

For what they charge for their journals they are vastly overpaid. The only thing they have is a crank-free list of reviewers. That's something open source alternatives must be careful to copy.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Aug 09, 2017
@antialias, @Da Schneib, @Nbles.

There is no other solution than to construct a totally free public web site(s) (a la "arxiv") but which ALSO allows ANYONE to make observations/critiques POLITELY and to the point. As we have seen through news/articles/discussions here on PO, the OLD systems of 'closed shop' and 'anonymous' peers of 'professionals' have their own personal/mercenary/career etc barrows to push; and/or are biased due to their investment in the same sort of 'interpretations' and 'models' and 'assumptions' which paper-writers MUST cow-tow to, or at least give lip-service to, in order to GET 'passed by peer review' for publications/citing etc 'rewards'.

We have seen this situation unfold over the last decades. And because of it decades sometimes pass before science self-corrects; but only when a brave 'professional' or an 'outsider' makes the farce untenable to continue as before; hence the present discussions as to what to do about it all.

Viva the INTERNET! :)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Aug 09, 2017
but which ALSO allows ANYONE to make observations/critiques

It fails right there. Because then we'd have the likes of you weighing in on papers.

That this isn't *peer* review should be obvious to anyone.
Shakescene21
5 / 5 (3) Aug 09, 2017
As a non-scientist who loves science, I'm usually kept out by paywalls. I'm especially unhappy about reports that are based on government-funded research but are only available through paywalls. Another problem is that Physorg will publish a dramatic abstract of a study but there is no real information provided to support the dramatic statements. (For example, Physorg states "Vitamin E Increases Cancer Death Rate", but the summary says nothing about what kinds of Vitamin E were used in the study, or how sick the patients were, and other critical factors. So you don't really know anything unless you buy the report, and then you may learn it was a poorly designed study.)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Aug 09, 2017
As a non-scientist who loves science, I'm usually kept out by paywalls.

You really don't need to be. Plugging the title of the paper into google will very often give you a link to a free preprint version (on arxiv or similar sites).
If that doesn't help and you really want to read the paper just drop a quick note to the author (you can google their addresses quite easily from the name and their resaerch institute affiliation), explaining the paywall problem and your interest.
Even though they aren't really allowed to do so - because technically the journal now owns the rights to the paper - they will always send it to you.

Researchers like it when someone is interested in their work...go figure.
EmceeSquared
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 09, 2017
RealityCheck:
allows ANYONE to make observations/critiques POLITELY and to the point


You are the case in point for why peer review is valuable, and "anyone on the Internet who can submit" is worse than worthless. You have Dunning Kruger disease. The rest of us appreciate your exclusion from the creation and validation of actual knowledge. I just wish you'd finally recognize that and take your symptoms somewhere else where people are stupid enough to tolerate it.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Aug 09, 2017
@EmceeSquared.
You are the case in point for why peer review is valuable, and "anyone on the Internet who can submit" is worse than worthless. You have....Kruger_effect. The rest of us appreciate your exclusion from the creation and validation of actual knowledge. I just wish you'd finally recognize that and take your symptoms somewhere else where people are stupid enough to tolerate it.
EmceeSquared, your 'attack' can/does apply both ways!

To wit: your/others' blatant personal bias, insults, knejerking/strawmanning 'tactics' (in lieu of calm, objective consideration of ALL possibilities), is a perfect example of what HAS BEEN WRONG with the CURRENT peer review/publishing etc CLOSED SHOP system that has FAILED; allowing TOO MUCH CRAP to 'pass by peer review' for DECADES until I/others brought the REALITY CHECKS that are NOW bringing sanity, objectivity BACK to 'professional' theoretical science/scientists.

FIRST acknowledge YOUR OWN failings; THEN STOP hypocrisy. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Aug 09, 2017
@antialias_physorg.
It fails right there. Because then we'd have the likes of you weighing in on papers.

That this isn't *peer* review should be obvious to anyone.
Why must you make it about ME again, antialias? Can't you ever leave your personal animosities/prejudices/feuds aside to consider objectively all the possibilities like the scientific method demands?

I could easily retaliate in kind, for it would be too easy to highlight examples of YOUR failures which are even GREATER threats to objective science review/publishing/practices than any 'cranks' ever could be!

Consider how many decades BB/Inflation etc CRAP has been 'passed by peer review'; only to recently (finally) be challenged/debunked by Penrose/Steinhardt as being too long allowed to mislead science/theory because YOU and their 'peers' just WENT ALONG despite NO TENABLE OBJECTIVE support all this time!

Heal thyself FIRST; THEN consider ALL the ways it CAN be made to work BETTER than current one. :)
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (3) Aug 09, 2017
RealityCheck:
EmceeSquared, your 'attack' can/does apply both ways!


No it doesn't. My attack is on your fully documented lying and just plain insanity that disqualifies you, in this case from being a peer reviewer. I am not claiming to be qualified to be a peer reviewer, so it's irrelevant that my posts attacking you don't disqualify me as one (though they're factual and logical).

Yours is such a terrible false equivalence fallacy that it only further defines you as incompetent, proving what a catastrophe "crowdsourced peer review" would be.

Stick to being a mad pseudoscientist. Submit your ravings to some other outlet already instead of this one. Just because these comments don't require peer review doesn't mean they should tolerate your insipid, self serving yammering.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2017
Stick to being a mad pseudoscientist. Submit your ravings to some other outlet already instead of this one. Just because these comments don't require peer review doesn't mean they should tolerate your insipid, self serving yammering.
@MC^2
science advocacy is left only to those willing to advocate for the science with the requisite evidence, so those who wish science must stand together (but as you can tell, that will not happen typically)

unfortunately, the PO site has changed to the point where you will be deleted and or chastised for advocating for science and or requesting evidence from the likes of the idiots... leaving the idiots to continue to argue that their pseudoscience isn't really pseudoscience becuase they make the claim it isn't pseudoscience

then they'll claim free speech and anyone who is against the lack of evidence is just pushing for censorship

until the site actually abides by it's own posting guidelines, it's advocating for pseudoscience
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2017
Captain Stumpy:
those who wish science must stand together


Well, here we are.

until the site actually abides by it's own posting guidelines, it's advocating for pseudoscience


Tacitly, yes. But the pseudoscientists also give solid examples for the science meta-discussion that is very important now: how does the public that depends on quality science and its communication confront the anti-science threat? Doing so in these comments with facts and logic, consistent with the scientific method, sets a good example. Even if it's dispensed without the traditional patience for the willfully stupid that they've used up by now.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 09, 2017
Doing so in these comments with facts and logic, consistent with the scientific method, sets a good example
@MC^2
absolutely agreed, and it teaches critical thinking because it forces people to recognize that source material and the ability to replicate and validate are important in science

my point was that the site specifically states pseudoscience and pseudoscience links will be deleted, yet they're not, and the site has actively started deleting pro-science advocates who "dispense with the traditional patience"

the trolls use socks to multi-report a person, striking comments (not all, but a lot do - this includes pseudoscience, religious and conspiracy theorists, etc)

none of the science advocates report the trolls or pseudoscience

for this reason alone, advocacy for science will fail because you can't compete with the sheer volume of nutters, nor the multi-sock delusional poster

all because the site

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Aug 09, 2017
@MC^2 cont'd

there is more about why advocacy fails: the science advocates have standards that they typically don't cross (multi-socks, etc)

the trolls (etc, see above) do not abide by any rule as this is, per their own arguments, censorship, as though an opinion based belief is equivalent to a factual evidence based science (this is repeatedly demonstrated, like here: https://phys.org/...apy.html )

so the pseudoscience troll etc makes multi socks and you can't use the ignore button
they use socks to uprate so you can't use the slider to adjust based on average
what you're left with is overwhelming pseudoscience

so advocates usually end up leaving the site (sometimes permanently) because of the idiots (Q-star, pink, thermo, runrig, etc)

where does it stop?

you can lead a person to knowledge, but you can't make them think - especially not if it's drowned out by the loonies
Turgent
Aug 09, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Aug 09, 2017
@EmceeSquared.
EmceeSquared, your 'attack' can/does apply both ways!
No it doesn't. My attack is on your fully documented lying and just plain insanity that disqualifies you, in this case from being a peer reviewer. I am not claiming to be qualified to be a peer reviewer, so it's irrelevant that my posts attacking you don't disqualify me as one (though they're factual and logical).
In denial! Seriously, mate, do you even hear yourself when you type/act like that? Consider who is the one lying/incompetent before you start creating your own 'delusions' re what's been going down.

As a stark reminder of the difference between you/CS-gang and me, I will (next) post that list of questiins which you/CS-gang have been evading because it's too obvious that it would put the lie to what yu/CS-gang have been trying to 'snow' the @Forum with so far.

And while we're at it, EcS, how credible is a CS-gang who encourages/exploits BOT-VOTING, insults/personal attacks tactics? :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (3) Aug 09, 2017
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good, thanks for asking.

I will next post that list of questiins
Why you want to post that again? You already posted him about 50 or 49 times. You like getting falsified on that? And the nice peoples at physorg already falsified you for making the same posts over and over and over.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Aug 09, 2017
PS @EcS. As foreshadowed in my previous...

Now, answer these for the @Forum:
- Why did you *not know* about Plasmoids/Flux Tubes in Sun processes?

- Why did you *not know* about non-Keplerian GR orbitals/Ordinary Matter regimes/distributions in spiral galaxies?

- Why did you *not know* about surface/edge etc Plasmonic Energy effects in Two-slit (and slit-groove and other variants) experiments/results?

- Why did you *not know* about Bicep2 flaws?

I knew all these things/more, EcS/CS-gang, and I tried to point them out for your benefit; so now answer also these further questions for @Forum:

- Why did you keep kneejerking in ignorance instead of checking out objectively what I tried to inform you of, EcS/CS-gang?

- Why call me "liar" when you DIDN'T KNOW sh!t, CS/DS?


Go on, EcS/CS-gang; face your reality; explain yourselves to @Forum. Why keep evading reality? Because the answers will show your above rationalizations/lies about me for what they are? Go on.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Aug 09, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good, thanks for asking.

I will next post that list of questions
Why you want to post that again? You already posted him about 50 or 49 times. You like getting falsified on that? And the nice peoples at physorg already falsified you for making the same posts over and over and over.
Because they need to be posted for as often as you/CS-gang keep posting lies and evasions, Ira.

Anyhow, Ira, thanks for posting that. It reminds @Forum how many times you/CS-gang have evaded those questions and just kept stalling/cluttering and repeating your same lies and bot-voting 'tactics' while evading the reality which shows exactly who it is that has been 'falsified;' so far according to respective PO postings records. The more you try to bury/distract, the more the @Forum can see you/CS-gang being lame and dishonest. Keep it up, Ira, it helps me and highlights the truth of these matters no end, mate! Ta.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2017
Keep it up, Ira
Well alright with me Skippy, if that is what you want.

how many times you/CS-gang have evaded those questions
How many times? Well I am not sure, you ask those same questions about 51 or 50 times. After the first 30 or 29 everybody got tired of repeating the same answers, so now you just have be "proven falsified all along".

Oh yeah, I almost forget. What was you in the Parish jail for that the Captain-Skippy keeps talking about? Is fooling around on the interweb a parole offense? Just curious, so if it is embarrassing and you don't want to talk about it, just forget I asked.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Aug 09, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
Keep it up, Ira
Well alright with me Skippy, if that is what you want.
It's what you do, Ira; I just pointed out how it helps me and the truth, that's all. :)
how many times you/CS-gang have evaded those questions
Well I am not sure, you ask those same questions about 51 or 50 times. After the first 30 or 29 everybody got tired of repeating the same answers, so now you just have be "proven falsified all along".
What "answers", Ira? They posted NO "answers" to those questions which I posed to highlight who is actually falsified and who is not, Ira. Their only response has been clutter and lies; and more clutter and lies as evasion tactics.
What was you in the Parish jail for that the Captain-Skippy...
Caps must be talking about HIMSELF and his "criminal" stupidity!...he BOASTED about his stalking/hacking over Internet!...and Cap's been INCOMPETENT even in THAT; making mistaken-identity ERRORS and so telling LIES based on same. Danger!
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2017
Their only response has been clutter and lies; and more clutter and lies as evasion tactics.
Is that what they are doing? I am wondering how long they have been doing that,,,, when you first put up your questions they would not answer? Because from here it looks like "you have been proven falsified all along".
Turgent
1 / 5 (1) Aug 09, 2017
Perhaps there exists such an absence of fundamental scientific knowledge that there is an inability to understand such questions even if a Wikipedia explanation exists. Double slit –what is a photon? Particle no it's a wave no a particle….
EmceeSquared
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 09, 2017
RealityCheck:
do you even hear yourself when you type/act like that?


Of course I do. Like most rational people I think of what I say before I post it. I stand by it, after re-reading it. It is completely correct and indeed morally righteous.

I have not posted any lies or evasions. I am not in denial of anything. You are a pathological liar and projector. You are a masochist who keeps posting garbage in threads where everyone else demands you shut up already, instead of just posting it in one of the unfortunately too many pseudoscience sites where crackpots like you thrive.

Nobody's interested in your questions, because nobody's interested in validating even a few of your many pathological lying posts. It's not worth it to sort out whether any of your questions or answers have anything to them, because so many of yours don't. You're completely discredited, which is why you change usernames, but your distinctive pathological style gives you away quickly.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
Their only response has been clutter and lies; and more clutter and lies as evasion tactics.
Is that what they are doing?
Yes, Ira, and you know that because you are a CS-gang member with especial 'talent' for bot-voting and being an ignoramus extraordinaire! :)
I am wondering how long they have been doing that,,,,
For as long as they first drew breath, os so it seems, since you/CS-gang have been doing it for (way too many) years now....as the answers to those questions I posted now highlight, whether or not you/CS-gang ever face/answer them. :)
when you first put up your questions they would not answer?
You/CS-gang are obviously too scared of what the answers will make too abundantly clear to @Forum, hence your/CS-gang's evasions/clutter posts, Ira. That only helps me and the truth. Ta, Ira/CS-gang. :)
Because from here it looks like "you have been proven falsified all along".
Your "here" is BOT-VOTING IGNORAMUS land, Ira. Ta. :)
Turgent
1 / 5 (1) Aug 09, 2017
These Luddites are frightening
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 09, 2017
@EmceeSquared.
you even hear yourself when you type/act like that
Of course I do.
Now you're lying to yourself as well as @Forum, EcS. Not healthy.
Like most rational people I think of what I say before I post it. I stand by it, after re-reading it. It is completely correct and indeed morally righteous.
Who do you think you're kidding, mate? You associate with, encourage BOT-VOTING on a science site, for pity's sake! Have you no shame or sense of right/wrong?....that you would STILL claim to be "completely correct and morally righteous"!? You're far gone to bias/delusion/hypocrisy, EcS. Not healthy.
I have not posted any lies or evasions. I am not in denial of anything. You are a pathological liar and projector.
It's YOU evading questions posed to highlight who was correct all along (me) and who not (you/CS-gang).
Nobody's interested in your questions,.
Lame rationalizations by in-denial sufferers too scared to face their reality. Not healthy, EcS.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 09, 2017
@MC^2
another example of one problem science advocacy has: the pseudoscience crowd uses repetition and falsely attempts to lend legitimacy to their arguments by simply pointing and saying "PO is a science site and here is the information on PO"

repetition is a functional tool, especially when there are so few advocates for science. it's why you see it used more than anything else by everything from religions to posters above

just report and move on with those cases that are also mentally unstable

no need to point to the obvious

.

.

@turdTROLL
These Luddites are frightening
LOL
says the man who got caught parroting the denier rhetoric almost verbatim, but requests others to "Show some personal understanding of issues by expressing it yourself"

it's not like you can challenge that one given that i provided the links and references to prove it, eh?
( https://phys.org/...ate.html )
EmceeSquared
4 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2017
@EmceeSquared.
you even hear yourself when you type/act like that
Of course I do.
Now you're lying to yourself as well as @Forum, EcS. Not healthy.


Of course I'm not lying that I hear my words when I type before I post. Why would you even say that, except to hear your own denial? You're a jar of snot.

You associate with, encourage BOT-VOTING on a science site, for pity's sake!


That is simply your delusion run amok. You're a jar of snot.
EmceeSquared
4 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2017
Captain Stumpy:
repetition is a functional tool, especially when there are so few advocates for science. it's why you see it used more than anything else by everything from religions to posters above


Science adherents can be persistent too. It's actually easier to repeatedly defend science, because the scientific method is simple and everyone sane recognizes its the integrity of its method. Maintaining these pseudoscience fictions is much harder. Even the Greenhouse denial and Creationist pseudoscience repetition is maintainable only standing on the shoulders of well funded and organized troll tanks. Some run by whole nations science has proved wrong, like Russia and the Alt-Confederacy.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2017
... everyone sane recognizes its the integrity of its method
@MC^2
that is actually one problem that needs to be addressed: not everyone sane recognizes the integrity of the method

like in some recent cultural cognition studies - here is one: http://www.tandfo...0.511246

though i also admit that the above isn't the problem we see here on PO - LOL
Science adherents can be persistent too. It's actually easier to repeatedly defend science...
yes and no

we see that there are some with dogged determination, that is true

but the example of PO also shows that the trolls far outcry and outflood the science adherents

we can't be everywhere, and the site refuses to abide by it's own posted "guidelines"

what is most irritating is that PO has started deleting valid complaints against the trolls, but leaving the pseudoscience up, as if that makes sense to moderate the valid complaint, but not the reason

...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2017
@EmceeSquared.
do you even hear yourself when you type/act like that
Of course I do.
Now you're lying to yourself as well as @Forum, EcS. Not healthy.
Of course I'm not lying that I hear my words when I type before I post. Why would you even say that, ...?
I say that because it's obvious you cannot BE hearing what you are actually typing/doing, but rather you're 'hearing' what you WANT to 'hear' (like you do with your already obvious 'reading' bias where you 'read' what you WANT to 'read' into a post...which you then proceed to 'strawman' and evade/deny/lie 'like a trooper'! :)
You're a jar of snot.
EcS, seriously, you've been around that poisonous, unprincipled, juvenile CS-gang of bot-voting ignoramuses too long; it's turned your cranium into a "jar" for, as you put it, "snot". Now blow your mind's "nose", EcS! :)
You associate with, encourage BOT-VOTING on a science site, for pity's sake!
That is simply your delusion...
In denial!
EmceeSquared
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2017
Captain Stumpy:
not everyone sane recognizes the integrity of the method


Well, according to its free abstract, that study didn't test whether people recognized the integrity of the scientific *method*. It tested only whether those people recognized the reality of the results of what they were told was science. Typically those people will first argue that there was some departure from the scientific method, or at least some built in bias. Not disputing the integrity of the scientific method itself. It also didn't test whether those people were sane.

Because the scientific method is basically familiar to any sane adult. You observe something, come up with a working hypothesis, try something that would prove that hypothesis wrong. After systematic failures to prove it wrong you upgrade your hypothesis with more of your consistent observed behaviors into theory. Failed exhaustive efforts at disproof give you a law.

Anyone refusing that is crazy. Like the faith obsessed.
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Aug 10, 2017
Anyone refusing that is crazy. Like the faith obsessed.
@MC^2
good points, and i agree

but-

one of the things that the study leads to, and is relevant to, is the refusal to accept validated science, which really is relevant as it's an indirect refusal to accept the integrity of the scientific method

that is what i think scary about it

not all the deniers of AGW are stupid, and some are actually very competent in math or even science. they just don't accept the results of validation because of their need for peer acceptance and or social standing withing a specific group for whatever reason
http://journals.p....0075637

and so you have *some* people who are not insane, but can't accept validated science

in a way it can be considered functionally insane

but it's not really insanity, just stupidity

thoughts?
EmceeSquared
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2017
Captain Stumpy:
refusal to accept validated science, which really is relevant as it's an indirect refusal to accept the integrity of the scientific method


It's relevant, indeed it's more important than whether they reject the integrity of the scientific method. Because science, though important, is not as important as people rejecting tested reality. That rejection is killing us daily and extincting us over a few generations.

But rejecting the integrity of the scientific method: Really only insane people (or otherwise mentally disabled, or uneducated children) do that. Explicitly practicing science, even as an amateur reader/investigator, disciplines most people away from the cognitive dissonance that rejecting the scientific method (in practice, regardless of name) necessitates. But most people don't explicitly practice science, and most of them aren't deterred by even major cognitive dissonance. As you cite, peer acceptance or just culture, habit prevail.

cont'd
EmceeSquared
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2017
cont'd

Rejecting the scientific method (by whatever name) is insane not just on some objective definition of "sane". Sanity is the condition when people share enough frame of reference in common that they can communicate meaningfully with each other. Without realizations according to the scientific method, a person's frame of reference isn't sync'ed with reality. Without that sync, shared reference frames are unlikely to impossible, so insanity. Nobody's perfectly synced, nobody's a perfect scientist, most of us are as disciplined in it as we are in say throwing baskets. We might not win NCAA tournaments, but we get our trash in the can, and don't live in trash nests. But some of us do.

cont'd
EmceeSquared
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2017
cont'd

Some people are indoctrinated into insanity. Religion is probably the most common, but the privileged laziness of stupid people who mostly follow the industrialized programme (especially if they're White hetero men) has its own cultural flow that keeps people from ever practicing any critical thinking, let alone the extreme that is the scientific method. They just take what they're given and stay out of existential trouble, repeating what people who look like the people on their money say, and "don't overthink it".

But lots are indoctrinated, especially by religion. Religion is a way of knowing what cannot be tested. When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail, and committed religionists see everything as knowable by faith - even when it can be tested. That is insanity. But religions have ways of perpetuating themselves, even when they plunge their people into millennia of dark ages.They decouple people from reality, making them all insane.

cont'd
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2017
not all the deniers of AGW are stupid, and some are actually very competent in math or even science.


Sure, but they're still nuts. Maybe not about everything. But denying AGW requires believing the mountain of lies, illogic and just gibberish, while ignoring or (more often) actively disrespecting the detailed, published experiments by many thousands of people for many decades, as well as their own direct observations of their local climate.

Believing that a carpenter came back to life so their sins wouldn't count against them if they just believe he did, was the omnipotent diety, whose religion took over a giant empire - but left no actual evidence, whose gospels contradict each other, whose church has done the worst sins for most of its millennia in power... insane. But that insanity doesn't prevent a believer from, say, isolating and defining oxygen.

So a top economist believes in Jesus but not AGW. Just another incompletely sane human. Which can make one stupid.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2017
@MC^2
Sure, but they're still nuts
LOL
yes
LOL

functional, but still nuts, just not completely nuts!
or, as you so succinctly put it: " incompletely sane"

that is epic, i am so stealing that phrase!
LMFAO
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2017
Captain Stumpy:
@MC^2
Sure, but they're still nuts [...] "incompletely sane"


that is epic, i am so stealing that phrase!


I'd have forgotten it if you hadn't LOL'ed at it. It's "Alt Sanity" :).
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2017
@EmceeSquared and @Captain Stumpy.

Nice 'conversation' you have going there, guys. Meanwhile you are just as bad as the AGW deniers you are talking about when it comes to OTHER science matters.

Eg:

- Why did you *not know* about Plasmoids/Flux Tubes in Sun processes?

- Why did you *not know* about non-Keplerian GR orbitals/Ordinary Matter regimes/distributions in spiral galaxies?

- Why did you *not know* about surface/edge etc Plasmonic Energy effects in Two-slit (and slit-groove and other variants) experiments/results?

- Why did you *not know* about Bicep2 flaws?

I knew all these and more, EcS, CS, but you did NOT! So...

- Why keep kneejerking in ignorance instead of checking out objectively what I tried to inform you of, CS?

- Why call me "liar" when you DIDN'T KNOW sh!t, EcS, CS?

Listen, guys, if you are going to troll/insult others (whoever they are) it would help your credibility if YOU corrected your OWN "insane" error-and-denial 'tendencies'. :)

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.