https://www.reddit.com/r/scihub/comments/177rsze/a_mural_in_the_science_faculty_of_my_countrys/

https://radiolab.org/podcast/library-alexandra

  • UlyssesT
    ·
    vor 19 Tagen

    deleted by creator

    • Dr Cog@mander.xyz
      ·
      vor 1 Jahr

      Good. There isn't a single scientific organization, given the whole point of science is democratizing information research.

      General populace are supposed to rely on the top researchers in their field to disseminate information. These top researchers are usually the least controversial which is why they are trusted by the (again) democratized scientific community. I'll say this because a lot of people don't realize it: if you have any controversy in your past regarding misinformation or "fixing" results, and it ever gets out, you are immediately shunned and your work will never be looked at seriously again. You will lose your job and all credibility immediately. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it is heavily discouraged.

      If we want to combat misinformation we should be encouraging people to trust scientists and not get information from organizations with ulterior motives.

      • UlyssesT
        ·
        vor 19 Tagen

        deleted by creator

        • Dr Cog@mander.xyz
          ·
          vor 1 Jahr

          I'm not saying trust any random person who calls themself a scientist. Myself included.

          I'm saying people should trust reputable scientists at the top of their field. Ideally, journalists should do the leg work to identify these people and give them a voice, and describe why they should be trusted.

          That doesn't happen with nearly all right-leaning journalistic publications, unfortunately, resulting in a huge population not knowing who to trust or just mistrusting scientists in general.

          Edit: I realize I didn't answer your point on freedom of access. I do firmly believe all science should be accessible, because no single study should ever be taken as fact. Science works through repetition, and if you have a study that disagrees with nearly everything else then it's either a brand new way of looking at things (and will be supported in the future) or is junk (and will be ignored). But just because something is junk doesn't mean we should prevent people from accessing it.

          • UlyssesT
            ·
            vor 19 Tagen

            deleted by creator

            • Dr Cog@mander.xyz
              ·
              vor 1 Jahr

              You're very good at putting words into people's mouths (I didn't even mention antivax theories), and that point is where I end the conversation. Good day

              • UlyssesT
                ·
                vor 19 Tagen

                deleted by creator

                • Dr Cog@mander.xyz
                  ·
                  vor 1 Jahr

                  Ah, yes. Good catch, I did mention that there is no scientific evidence to support any widespread negative effects of the vaccines, and there continues to not be. You're more than able to put yourself in the running for the Nobel prize for saving millions of lives by finding and publishing this evidence, though, since it seems that you're so confident in it.

                  I did not state that "no one credible would believe them", and your links about slavery are irrelevant because the discussion was about vaccines, not racism.

                  And I didn't lie. Literally none of my colleagues thinks there is any merit to antivax scaremongering.