Open access to primary research and cranks cherry picking or misrepresenting that primary research are separate issues, and, at the very least, more open access will not mitigate the problem of cranks with big blind spots because honest understanding is not what cranks are about.
-
-
Show this thread
-
I’m all for more open access. I do not, however, expect it to decrease the severity of the problem we have with cranks that I described. If anything, it might make the problem worse by making it easier to cherry pick, a risk I’m willing to take.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
First, I've been running a cancer patient network for 7 years now. And we are acidic about scientific education. People do not have access to scientific news- they even don't know it exists. So tabloid is what they get.
-
I spend a *good* time of my life teaching patients how to reach scientific articles. After *how to find them and how to access them*. And those are the motivated ones- if you got a
#Melanoma killing you, learning Science isn't that scary. - Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Quite. There is a lot to be said about academic publishing, outrageous fees and open access, but it will not cure this disease, nor will it do all that much for public understanding of science. For that we need good science journalism and science communication.
-
OA may or may not help both those activities and OA may be good for many other reasons. I don’t, however, think that the general public will suddenly start reading and understanding technical research literature written for more or less narrow, expert audiences.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Confirmation bias -- only paying attention to a small % of research -- is also a problem.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yeah, I agree doctor, they know how to access paywalled information and a lot of them actually navigate the terms pretty well (Catie for example). They learn quickly and not all of them are ignorant, by a long shot. This definitely isn’t part of why they’re the way they are.
-
2: As you said, it’s cherry-picking and it’s motivated reasoning. Or picking low quality debunked studies/papers because it fits their narratives.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.