zlacker

>>sixtyf+(OP)
> “few public figures, if any, draw the direct connection between the expensive barricades around scientific research and the conspicuous epistemic collapse of significant portions of the American political discourse.”

That’s because it’s a major claim that has to be defended, not simply declared. On its face the claim seems absurd to me.

>>jtbayl+RH
It could even be argued that the barricade around scientific research is what kept the epistemic "superiority" of academia and academics. Opening up the tools to review the scientific literature gives people the power of "doing their own research" without having the tools and skills to decide whether a paper they have found on whatever topic is good research. It's possible that this democratization process has opened up the scientific knowledge to the masses but it is also possible that access to scientific literature doesn't really help without the training required to make sense of it.

>>pacbar+uK
> Opening up the tools to review the scientific literature gives people the power of "doing their own research" without having the tools and skills to decide whether a paper they have found on whatever topic is good research.

I think we'd be better off letting people read the papers themselves, even if they do a poor job of it. Seems very unlikely to be any worse than science journalism as it currently exists.