4 ms·
"Basic scientific literacy" is not enough to read most papers (in part because most papers are badly written and need familiarity with the genre to be understoo
by frostburg 9y ago
"Basic scientific literacy" is not enough to read most papers (in part because most papers are badly written and need familiarity with the genre to be understood). Almost everyone that I know that uses sci-hub does so because it's faster than finding the correct institutional proxy, repository, login credentials, etc. that they would need otherwise (the sci-hub UX is vastly superior).
- jly 9y agoThe ability of a non-scientist to understand a paper at a useful level varies greatly based on the area of study and the reader's knowledge of the topic. 'Basic scientific literacy' may not be enough, but there are many more individuals with an amateur level of advanced understanding or interest in a given area who benefit greatly. I personally have no institutional access but I read a lot of papers that I can understand with an undergrad level of science background and a keen interest in a specific subject. I'm sure there are many others like this.
- zipwitch 9y agoAnd let us not forget those who ended up working in wildly different fields from their degree or degrees. Such "cross-pollination" between different fields can be very productive.
- GCU-Empiricist 9y ago"Basic scientific Literacy" here probably should include basic understanding of statistics, and knowledge on how to read a journal paper in a foreign scientific domain. You don't have to know the lay of the land in a particular domain to understand the specific claim or methodology outlined, knowing how much it may mean in a domain. . . well that is context determined.
- coolaliasbro 9y ago> (in part because most papers are badly written and need familiarity with the genre to be understood) Considering science is a community/social enterprise, it's surprising that such papers are published at all.