Correlations
I wonder what the correlation is between a) experts who bemoan that non-experts get stupid, unqualified advice from the internet, and b) experts who don’t publish their papers freely accessible on the internet.
Time and again, when I’m trying to learn something about a field I don’t know a whole lot about, I seek out actual science. You know, so I don’t act on unjustified advice from the internet. But I almost always have to turn to something like Wikipedia or random sites from amateurs that Google brings up, because the science is all locked up and I can’t afford to pay $50 for a five-page pdf or a thousand dollars for a year’s subscription to some fancy journal. And I don’t have access to a university library either.
It really is stupid to take important decisions based on what you read on wikipedia. But what are you to do when the experts refuse to educate you unless you sell your grandma to afford their price? Better hope you weren’t seeking moral advice.
Tonight I was trying, for the umpteenth time, to find some science on a factor that really is quite important for how my life will turn out, and which the local experts have been unable to find for me. But it’s all behind massive paywalls. I really wish people like RMS et al would redirect their energies from software to science. I could live with commercial software and evidently I can live with commercial science, but I know which I’d prefer if I had to choose only one. In most cases, it’s not like the scientists are getting any of the profits — their salaries are paid by public or private companies, and they wouldn’t get anything less if you cut out the expensive middle-man. Of course, it’s not only the experts’ fault. They grew up into a system in which the middle-man was the ultimate authority and an integral part of their workflow.
I’m pretty sure I’ve wasted bytes on this issue before.
