PHP Warning: unserialize() expects parameter 1 to be string, array given in ..../showthread.php(1080) : eval()'d code on line 31
if science were religion, JSTOR, Springer, Wiley, etc would be the names of Mammon
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13
  1. Collapse Details
    if science were religion, JSTOR, Springer, Wiley, etc would be the names of Mammon 
    the thing is, the public in general has no idea how scientific knowledge is presented or where it is stored. if you are a scientist and you wish to prove something, how do you do it? you cite references to articles in peer-reviewed journals like Nature and Science - they look like skinny magazines but wow - check the subscription rates.

    suppose you wish to prove that ketamine can be use effectively as an antidepressant. i mean *proof* as in anyone who doesn't accept it is a gibbering superstitious peasant. what do you do? go to Google Scholar. did you know that was a thing? enter 'ketamine antidepressant'. instead of the normal nonsense you get searching google, you get a concise list of articles detailing scientific trials and experiments. this is what science IS, people - this is where scientific knowledge is stored.

    okay, y'all - let's us utilize the wealth of scientific's a likely candidate, an article entitled:

    Antidepressant effects of ketamine in depressed patients

    you can read a summary of the article, the abstract:

    Background: A growing body of preclinical research suggests that brain glutamate systems may be involved in the pathophysiology of major depression and the mechanism of action of antidepressants. This is the first placebo-controlled, double-blinded trial to assess the treatment effects of a single dose of an N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist in patients with depression.

    Methods: Seven subjects with major depression completed 2 test days that involved intravenous treatment with ketamine hydrochloride (.5 mg/kg) or saline solutions under randomized, double-blind conditions.

    Results: Subjects with depression evidenced significant improvement in depressive symptoms within 72 hours after ketamine but not placebo infusion (i.e., mean 25-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores decreased by 14 SD 10 points vs. 0 12 points, respectively during active and sham treatment).

    Conclusions: These results suggest a potential role for NMDA receptor-modulating drugs in the treatment of depression.
    but if you want the actual article, the real deal......$35.95

    question: who funded the research described in this article? taxpayers, mostly. how much of that $35.95 do the people who wrote the article get? 0%

    and this is not what i'm researching - i'm researching Bantu Africa. i want to read:

    Clan System Land Tenure and Succession Among the Baganda

    written in 19 fucking 09. and you bet it's chock full of racist nonsense, but i need to read it. $29.95


    if there is a devil, so must there be a messiah? let me introduce you to aaron swartz spoilers, he's dead. in a nutshell, he tried to do something about the above and the USGOV terrorized him until he hanged himself. you gotta see the movie: the Internet's Own Boy. utter genius. hero of internet freedom. could play jesus without makeup. he wrote a manifesto, which later got him in all kinds of trouble:

    Guerilla Open Access Manifesto

    Information is power. But like all power, there are those who want to keep it for
    themselves. The world's entire scientific and cultural heritage, published over centuries
    in books and journals, is increasingly being digitized and locked up by a handful of
    private corporations. Want to read the papers featuring the most famous results of the
    sciences? You'll need to send enormous amounts to publishers like Reed Elsevier.

    There are those struggling to change this. The Open Access Movement has fought
    valiantly to ensure that scientists do not sign their copyrights away but instead ensure
    their work is published on the Internet, under terms that allow anyone to access it. But
    even under the best scenarios, their work will only apply to things published in the future.
    Everything up until now will have been lost.

    That is too high a price to pay. Forcing academics to pay money to read the work of their
    colleagues? Scanning entire libraries but only allowing the folks at Google to read them?
    Providing scientific articles to those at elite universities in the First World, but not to
    children in the Global South? It's outrageous and unacceptable.

    "I agree," many say, "but what can we do? The companies hold the copyrights, they
    make enormous amounts of money by charging for access, and it's perfectly legal —
    there's nothing we can do to stop them." But there is something we can, something that's
    already being done: we can fight back.

    Those with access to these resources — students, librarians, scientists — you have been
    given a privilege. You get to feed at this banquet of knowledge while the rest of the world
    is locked out. But you need not — indeed, morally, you cannot — keep this privilege for
    yourselves. You have a duty to share it with the world. And you have: trading passwords
    with colleagues, filling download requests for friends.

    Meanwhile, those who have been locked out are not standing idly by. You have been
    sneaking through holes and climbing over fences, liberating the information locked up by
    the publishers and sharing them with your friends.

    But all of this action goes on in the dark, hidden underground. It's called stealing or
    piracy, as if sharing a wealth of knowledge were the moral equivalent of plundering a
    ship and murdering its crew. But sharing isn't immoral — it's a moral imperative. Only
    those blinded by greed would refuse to let a friend make a copy.

    Large corporations, of course, are blinded by greed. The laws under which they operate
    require it — their shareholders would revolt at anything less. And the politicians they
    have bought off back them, passing laws giving them the exclusive power to decide who
    can make copies.

    There is no justice in following unjust laws. It's time to come into the light and, in the
    grand tradition of civil disobedience, declare our opposition to this private theft of public

    We need to take information, wherever it is stored, make our copies and share them with
    the world. We need to take stuff that's out of copyright and add it to the archive. We need
    to buy secret databases and put them on the Web. We need to download scientific
    journals and upload them to file sharing networks. We need to fight for Guerilla Open

    With enough of us, around the world, we'll not just send a strong message opposing the
    privatization of knowledge — we'll make it a thing of the past. Will you join us?

    Aaron Swartz

    July 2008, Eremo, Italy
    Last edited by tantric; 06-24-2016 at 05:31 PM.
    Reply With Quote

  2. Collapse Details
    kudos to JSTOR, which now allows some limited free access, and to the few other companies that have taken steps.
    Reply With Quote

  3. Collapse Details
    Deciding to mix science with politics was one of the worst mistakes mankind ever made.
    Reply With Quote

  4. Collapse Details
    who decided? politics? mixing science with capitalism....i'll give you. i try to not be crazy about the infosocialism bit, but this particular manifestation offends. this system needs to go.
    Reply With Quote

  5. Collapse Details
    Senior Moderator
    DrDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Blog Entries
    Uncle Ted Kaczynski was right all along.
    Reply With Quote

  6. Collapse Details
    Quote Originally Posted by tantric View Post
    who decided? politics? mixing science with capitalism....i'll give you. i try to not be crazy about the infosocialism bit, but this particular manifestation offends. this system needs to go.
    Capitalism isn't the only system that funds scientific research with taxpayer dollars (thus introducing conflicts of interest). Why single it out?
    Reply With Quote

  7. Collapse Details
    funding isn't the issue - the issue is who owns the information. consider Jack Andraka, a 14 yr old kid who came up with a new type of early detection test for pancreatic cancer......because he had access to these articles, unlike the general public.
    Reply With Quote

  8. Collapse Details
    ^You have to consider that the only reason people do any thing is out of desire for material possessions. Capitalism may seem fucked up but its based on human nature. Selfishness and greed. If these guys can't make a bunch of money and ride around in limo's snorting coke then they aren't gonna research.

    The system sucks for a lotta people trust me I'm almost 25, under-employed, and make less than 10 bucks an hour cooking when I have been doing it for 8 fucking years! That's just over a dollar an hour for each year of experience. So I feel ya I can't afford the report myself but then again I can't afford a lot of things. At the end of the day I don't contribute much from society so how can I ask them to contribute a bunch of free shit to me?
    Reply With Quote

  9. Collapse Details
    ^^I have no problem with society giving people a helping hand once and a while. If they are stuck in some dead end job, allow them to recieve vocational training in order to get a fresh start. Everybody deserves a shot. Thing is, the majority of people are lazy, full of excuses, etc. They'll get the help and then not do the work or still complain things aren't fair. Now that I'm seeing people that are truly successful, I realize how much effort they put in and the sacrifices they make. Most of the people I see making $12/hr. spend most of their free time getting high and playing video games (EDIT: These are supposedly grown men in their late 20's). Not a knock on that lifestyle, but the individuals making $100,000 plus a year aren't doing those things in their spare time.
    Last edited by artichoke; 06-26-2016 at 05:44 PM.
    Reply With Quote

  10. Collapse Details
    I don't necessarily think that the $100K crowd avoids video games or weed. I went to school with some kids who are now Silicon Valley types and they still blaze and play WoW just the same. I think that the difference, aside from any intelligence argument, is that these people know how to manage their time better. If they are going to smoke or play video games, they probably went to bed the previous night knowing that they were going to have a few chill hours the next day. It's the impulsive living that leads to stagnation and underachievement. It sucks at first, but making lists of daily/weekly goals and getting emotionally invested in it all works. Learning how to make productive use of your time works, as does learning how to abandon things before they end up wasting too much of your time. All of the (self-made) rich people I know are very good at all of this stuff.
    Last edited by RedLeader; 06-27-2016 at 02:31 AM.
    Reply With Quote

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO