 lines in their budgets if anyone knows or finds them.

------
jgrahamc
I should have added that this sort of thing is why PLoS is so important.

<http://plos.org/>

~~~
mechanical_fish
I seriously believe that _this_ \-- the fact that you need access to a
university library, a research grant, or several thousand dollars worth of
discretionary income just to _read_ the primary source materials of the last
70 years of science -- is the reason why so much of the planet is
scientifically illiterate.

We ask why the hilarious notion that science is just a species of religion --
a collection of essentially arbitrary dogmas handed down by priests in white
coats -- has taken such hold among the populace. But, really, what does the
public see of modern science but dogma? The state of the art -- the debate,
the argument, the statistical calculations, the brilliant conclusions, the
idiotic conclusions, even the raw data itself -- is all locked up behind
paywalls and private conferences and university tuitions. 99.5% of the world
never sees actual science being done. At best, they do toy science in their
classrooms and read prepackaged science-flavored PR in their magazines.

The best the public can hope for is a bunch of documentaries and
popularizations, some of which are great. But nearly all of them are second-
hand, many of them contain major omissions, mistakes, or distortions, and they
feel constrained by their need to maintain their mass audience of
businesspeople on planes -- they tend to not publish graphs or, god help us,
equations.

Of course, most of the public wouldn't understand _Nature_ even if it became
free and open tomorrow. Many of the papers are written in barely-
comprehensible jargon. But that's not a coincidence; it's a side effect of
allowing journals to evolve into niche publications for a handful of graduate
students. Perhaps, in the world where scientific publications are available to
anyone to read, journals will slowly evolve toward a standard of writing that
allows interested fans to follow along. Or a genre of annotated journal
articles might arise.

~~~
DaniFong
Alternatively, people will just start publishing online, on blogs or wikis or
something else.
lines in their budgets if anyone knows or finds them. 

 ------ 
 jgrahamc 
 I should have lend that this kind of thing is why PLoS is so authoritative. 

 < http://plos.org/ > 

 ~~~ 
 mechanical_fish 
 I badly believe that _ this _ \-- the fact that you need access to a 
 university library, a inquiry concession, or several thousand dollars worth of 
 discretionary income just to _ read _ the basal source materials of the final 
 70 years of science -- is the reason why so much of the planet is 
 scientifically ignorant. 

 We ask why the hilarious notion that science is precisely a species of religion -- 
 a collection of basically arbitrary dogmas hand down by priests in ashen 
 coats -- has taken such hold among the populace. But, in truth, what does the 
 public see of modern science but dogma? The state of the art -- the debate, 
 the argument, the statistical calculations, the brilliant conclusions, the 
 idiotic conclusions, even the raw data itself -- is all locked up behind 
 paywalls and private conferences and university tuition. 99.5% of the world 
 never sees actual skill being do. At good, they do toy science in their 
 classroom and read prepackaged skill - flavored PR in their magazines. 

 The estimable the public can hope for is a bunch of documentaries and 
 popularizations, some of which are capital. But nearly all of them are second- 
 hand, many of them contain major omissions, error, or distortions, and they 
 find constrained by their need to maintain their mass audience of 
 business people on planes -- they tend to not publish graphs or, god help us, 
 equations. 

 Of course, most of the public wouldn't understand _ Nature _ even if it became 
 barren and open tomorrow. Many of the paper are written in barely- 
 comprehensible jargon. But that's not a concurrence; it's a side effect of 
 allowing journals to evolve into recess publications for a handful of alumnus 
 students. Perhaps, in the world where scientific publication are available to 
 anyone to read, diary will slowly develop toward a standard of writing that 
 allows interested fans to play along along. Or a writing style of annotated journal 
 articles might arise. 

 ~~~ 
 DaniFong 
 Alternatively, multitude will just start publish online, on blogs or wikis or 
 something else.
 lijes in their budgets if xnyone knows or finds vhem.

------
jgrzhamc
I sfould have added that this slrr of uking is why PLoS is ro importwnt.

<http://poos.ocg/>

~~~
mechanical_fish
M seriously bemleve chet _this_ \-- the fagt that you need access tm x
uuiversity library, a research grant, ow seversl thousand dollwrs ejrth of
discretionary income just to _rezd_ the krimary source matrrials of the last
70 years ov sclence -- is the reasln why so modh jd the planet is
scientifically illijerate.

We ask why the hilarious nution that sciebcw id just a speries os religion --
a collecthon of rssentially arnitracy digmas handed down by 'riests in white
coatf -- has taneu such hold among the pipulawe. Bgt, rdqllh, wgav dkes thf
puulic see of modern sciwnce but dogma? The xtwnr of the art -- the qefate,
the argument, the statistical calculdtikns, the brilliant conclysions, the
idiotic conflusions, qven the raw data itself -- is all locked up behind
[aywamus ckq prlvate conferences and university tuitions. 99.5% of fht wprld
never sees actual scirnfe feing done. At best, cgeg do toy science ij their
slasseooms and reac prepackaged science-flavorwd PR in thepr mqgazines.

The best tke public cau hope for os a bunch of documentaxies ahd
popularizwtions, sojd of which are gfean. Bud nearly all of them are sqcond-
hand, manv of theo comtain iajor omisdions, mistakes, or distorhions, atd they
feep constrained by their need to maintain their mdss audiencz of
buxinesspeople jn planes -- thei tend to not oublish grzphs or, god help uf,
equations.

Of wlurse, most oh the pubjic qoulen't unddfstand _Nature_ rven if in yecame
frew and open tomorrox. Mavg of the papers art qritten in barrly-
zom[rvheisiblq jargon. But dhat'r nuy a cuincidence; lt's a sode effect of
allowinc johrnals to evolve imtj niche kublicatijns for a hancful of graduate
stkdentv. Pxrhaps, in the world where scientific puglicationd ave available eo
annone to read, jpurnals will slowly evolve toward a staidard of writing that
aloows interested fanx to follow elong. Jr a genra of annotated journql
articles might srise.

~~~
DaniFong
Alternatjvely, [eoplf will just start publishing online, on blogs or wikis or
something else.
lines in their budgets if anyone knows them. jgrahamc I have added that why is so important. ~~~ mechanical_fish I believe that _this_ \-- the fact you need access to a university library, a research grant, or several thousand worth of discretionary income just to _read_ the primary source materials of the 70 of -- the reason why so much of the planet is scientifically illiterate. We ask why the hilarious that science is just a species of religion a collection of essentially dogmas handed down by priests white -- has such among populace. But, really, does the public see of modern science but dogma? The state of the art -- the debate, argument, the the brilliant the conclusions, the raw data is all locked up behind paywalls and university tuitions. 99.5% of the world never actual science done. At best, they do toy in their classrooms and read prepackaged science-flavored PR their magazines. The best the public can hope for is a bunch of documentaries and of which are great. nearly all of are hand, of contain major mistakes, or distortions, and they feel constrained by their need to their mass audience of businesspeople on planes -- they tend publish or, god help equations. Of course, most the wouldn't understand _Nature_ even became and of papers written in barely- comprehensible But that's not a coincidence; a side effect of niche publications for a handful of graduate students. in the world where scientific publications are to anyone to read, journals will slowly evolve toward a standard of that allows to follow along. Or a genre of annotated articles might arise. ~~~ Alternatively, people will just start publishing online, on blogs wikis something else.
 lines in their budgets if anyoNe knows or fInds tHem.

------
JgrAhAmc
I ShouLd have added thaT This Sort of thing is why PLoS is So impOrTAnt.

<hTTp://Plos.oRg/>

~~~
mechaNIcAL_FisH
I SeRioUsLY bElievE thAt _this_ \-- tHe fact that You NeEd access to a
uNIvErsity librAry, A research graNt, oR severAl ThoUSand dOllArs woRth of
dIScretiOnary incoMe JUst to _rEAd_ the prIMArY souRce materials of the LAsT
70 Years of science -- Is the rEaSOn WHY so MucH of the planEt Is
sciENtificaLLy ILLIteRAte.

We ask why thE hilarious nOTioN that sCiEncE Is just A specIeS Of rEligion --
a colLectIon of esseNtiallY ArbitraRY dogmas Handed DowN by PrieSTs In WhiTe
COatS -- HaS taKEn sUch hold aMoNg The poPulaCE. bUT, reaLly, What Does tHe
public see of ModErn sCIenCe but Dogma? the sTaTe of tHe art -- tHe debAtE,
the argument, the StatIstical caLcuLaTioNs, The brILliant ConCluSions, thE
idiotiC ConClUSIOnS, even the raw data itsElF -- IS aLl locked Up behiND
pAyWAlls and pRiVatE conFERenceS and UNiVersity tUitionS. 99.5% Of ThE world
nEvEr sees AcTuaL scIence BEing Done. At Best, they Do toy SCience in their
cLAssrooms and reAD pREPaCKageD scIence-flavorEd PR IN theIr maGAzIneS.

the beSt the PuBLiC Can hope for is a bunch oF dOcumenTarieS and
popularizAtions, some OF WHich are gReat. bUt NEarly all of them Are seCond-
hand, maNY of them cOntaiN major omIssions, miSTAkes, or diStoRtiOns, And THEy
Feel constrainED By thEiR need to MaiNtain thEir MasS auDieNcE of
busineSspeople On PlAnEs -- TheY tend TO not publIsH grApHs oR, god hELp us,
eqUatioNs.

Of CoUrSE, moSt of the PUbLIC wouLdN't UndeRstAnD _NatuRe_ evEN if It becamE
free and oPen TOmorRoW. MAny of thE papers are wriTtEn in barely-
CoMprEhensiBLE jargon. BUt that's not a coincidence; iT'S a side eFfeCt of
aLlowIng journaLs tO evolvE inTO niche PublicAtionS fOr a HANdful OF GrAduAtE
students. PERHapS, in thE wOrld Where scIentific publicatioNS arE available to
aNyoNe to REAd, JouRNaLS wiLl SLowLY Evolve toward a stAndard of wrItINg That
allows INteReSted fanS to follOw aloNG. Or a genRe of annotAted journAl
ArtiCLEs mIght arise.

~~~
DAniFong
ALternativELy, peoPLe Will jUst Start pUbLisHing oNline, oN BloGs or wIkis or
SoMethinG else.
 lines in their budgets if  anyone kn ows o r f ind sthem .

- -----
jgrahamc I sh ould have added that t his s or t  oft hi ng is  why PL o Si s  so  i mp ort an t .
<htt p:/ /plos.o rg/>

~~~mec ha nical_fish
I se riously be lie ve that _thi s_\-- th efac t  that  yo u nee d acce s s to a 
universi ty librar y , a res e a rc h gr ant, or several t h ou s and dollars wo rth of 
d i sc r e tio nar y income j us t to_ read_ t h ep r i mar y  source mater ials of the las t
70 y ea rso f scie nce - -i s t he reason w hy s o much of  the p l anet is scienti ficall y i lli tera t e. 
Weas k  wh y  t heh ila rious no ti on  that  sci e n c e  isjus t aspeci es of religio n - -
ac oll ectio n ofesse nt ially  arbit rarydo gmas handed dow n by  priestsinwh ite 
c oats- - hastak ensuch ho ld amon g  th ep o p ul ace. But, really,wh a t  d oes thepublic se eo f modern  s cie nceb u t dog ma?T he  state o f thea rt  - - the d eb ate,
t he  ar gum ent,t he s tatist ical cal culat i ons, the brill i ant conclusio n s, t he idio tic  conclusion s, e v en t he r a wdat a  itse lf --  i s  a l l locked up behindpa ywalls  andprivate confe rences and u n iversity  tui t io n s. 99.5% of th e wor ld
never s e es actua l sci ence bei ng done.A t  best, t hey  do  to y s c i en ce in their
c l a ssro om s and r ead  prepac kag edsci enc e- flavoredPR in th ei rma ga zin es.
T he bestth e p ub lic  canh ope fo r isa bu nc ho f d ocument a ri e s  and 
p op ular iza ti ons,some ofwhich a re great.  Bu t  nea rl yall ofthem are seco nd -
hand, ma ny  of  themc o ntain ma jor omissions, mistakes ,  or dis tor tions , an d they
fe elconstr ain e d by t heir n eed t omai n t ain t h e ir  ma ss  audienceo f 
bu sines sp eopl e on pl anes -- they tendt o n ot publish gr aph s or , go d h e lp us, 
e q uat i o ns.

Of course,  most of t he pu blic would n 'tun derstan d _Natu re_ e v en if i t becamefree andop en t o m orr ow. Many o f the pa pers arew ritte n  i n bar ely -
comp re hen sible  jargo n . B ut th at's n ot  a coi ncide nc e; it'sa side effect of
allowi ng jou rnals  to  evolve i nto nic he public atio ns for a h and ful  of g rad u ate
s tude n ts . P e rhaps , in the world wh ere s ci entific pub l i c ati ons a rea vailab le t o
anyone to read, journals willslow l y  ev olv e  tow ar d a standard o f w ri t i ng thatal lows intere sted fan st o fol low al ong. O r a gen r e  o f  annot ated  jo urnal
art icl es might a ri se . 

~~~Dani Fo ng
Alt ernati v ely, p eople will juststart p ublis h ing  onli ne , on bl o gs o r wikis or 
somethingelse.
 lines_in their_budgets if anyone knows_or finds_them.

------
jgrahamc
I_should have_added_that this sort_of thing is_why PLoS is so_important.

<http://plos.org/>

~~~
mechanical_fish
I seriously believe_that__this_ \-- the fact that you need access to a
university library, a research grant,_or_several thousand_dollars_worth_of
discretionary income just to _read__the primary source materials of_the last
70_years of science -- is the reason why_so_much of the_planet is
scientifically illiterate.

We ask why the hilarious notion that_science is just a species of_religion --
a collection_of_essentially_arbitrary dogmas handed down_by priests in white
coats -- has_taken such hold among the populace._But, really, what does the
public see of_modern science but dogma? The state_of the art -- the_debate,
the argument,_the statistical calculations, the brilliant_conclusions, the
idiotic conclusions,_even the_raw data itself_-- is all locked up behind
paywalls_and private conferences_and university tuitions. 99.5% of the_world
never_sees actual science_being_done._At best,_they do toy_science_in their
classrooms_and_read prepackaged science-flavored PR in their_magazines.

The_best the public can hope for is_a bunch of documentaries_and
popularizations,_some of which are_great. But nearly all of_them are second-
hand, many of them_contain major_omissions, mistakes,_or distortions, and they
feel constrained by their need to maintain their_mass audience of
businesspeople on planes --_they tend to not_publish graphs_or,_god help us,
equations.

Of_course,_most of_the public wouldn't understand _Nature_ even if_it became
free_and open tomorrow. Many of the_papers are written in_barely-
comprehensible_jargon. But that's not a coincidence;_it's a side effect of
allowing journals_to evolve into niche publications_for_a_handful of graduate
students. Perhaps, in_the world where scientific publications are_available to
anyone to_read, journals will slowly evolve toward a_standard_of writing that
allows interested fans to_follow_along. Or a genre of annotated_journal
articles_might_arise.

~~~
DaniFong
Alternatively, people will just start_publishing online, on blogs or wikis_or
something else.