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
I see this all the time...

I work in medical research (basic science, not clinical), and I see people "cite" papers, based solely on their titles, without understanding, or likely even reading, the nuanced findings of the actual papers.

It's dangerous because it gives people, often with secondary agendas, the illusion of scientific backing when there really isn't any (or when it's far more nuanced).

I'll just note that I am still in favor of open over closed, but I think we're lagging in scientific literacy currently.

>>ravita+kZ1
No amount of increase of general scientific literacy will allow public in general to read/understand highly specialized fields. And most fields end up being highly specialized. But access to source can allow someone to validate the claims by a journalist or a public officials trying to bend conclusion to support their view. On top of it, it allows wider cross functional view, when someone with a data science background can check statistical reasoning used in, let’s medical research paper, etc.