Paying for Knowledge?

[Dancing David]

In another thread the "Summarizing for Clancie" one Materia3 posted the following comment apparently there is some reasearch done by a group called SPR and they feel it is unfair to critique the study if you don't want to PAY for it. I misunderstand but the quote that caught my eye was

In spite of the good work the following organizations and their publications do in promoting the scientific study and evidence for or against this phenomena which is demanded by TLN, there is so much bias against these groups that a few people prefer to discuss a mediumship study in one of them working from a total ignorance of the facts of the study. They flat out state they will not spend $15.00 because it would be giving money to the SPR. This is so astounding, so absurd and so shameful that people posting here claiming to be skeptics will not take the time, trouble or spend a relatively puny sum of money to be informed, defies rational explanation itself.

First off I am not sure the amount I read of $15 is puny or paltry. Second if they have proof of mediumship then they could publish it anywhere, like the discovery of the pion. It would be very news worthy.

I suspect a scam, can someone elucidate for me? Unless they are just saying that you can't critique a study unless you buy the magazine.

Again the proof of the prion was available to all, and the method of discovery was published widely in news papers. Same goes for the parity of the weak force.

 

[Nasarius]

Again the proof of the prion was available to all, and the method of discovery was published widely in news papers. Same goes for the parity of the weak force.

Or better yet, published through the standard channels in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

 

[mgdwcb]

I wouldn't be too hard on the SPR (Society for Psychical Research) regarding charging for accessing journals. For those who don't know about the SPR, it isn't an organisation that makes extraordinary claims - in fact, it says it doesn't have any `corporate views' on the paranormal. This is supporrted by the many notible skeptical members over the years, including Dr Susan Blackmore who contributed to many SPR journals. I even saw some correspondences from James Randi - so obviously he was included in the SPR circulation (unless he got membership / subscription free, I assume he had to pay like everyone else). Other notable skeptics here in the UK such as Dr Richard Richard Wiseman are high-profile members and have contributed skeptical articles in journals.

Normaly, results of research papers find its way into the media (as has happened with Dr Wiseman's research; I think this experiment appeared in a SPR journal - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3044607.stm ).

Intrested parties have the opportunity to read the actual journals themselves to get the in-depth details. Is this not the case in all research areas? Perhaps the fact that no striking evidence in favour of the paranormal in SPR journals hasn't made headlines is a result of `media bias' - or perhaps the evidence is not very strong!

But we can only judge by reading the source material, and there are obvious copyright problems in posting published articles free over the internet.

So I don't regard paying to access published articles of any organisation - the SPR, Nature or The Times Newspaper - as simply `paying for information'.

 

[Dancing David]

Welcome mgdwcb!


I question the argument though, that a sceptic must purchase the journal to critique the material. It would seem to be a better form of argument for the person to cut and paste a small amount of the source material and present the rationalization for why it is valid.

In the post that I cut from the person was saying that the critique was flawed because they did not read the article.

I feel that it is a better form of argumentation to present the material instead of saying, "You should go read it."


As far a smedia bias, they are willing to present all sorts of strange and outlandish claims (like the virgin in the knothole) with out any sort of documentation. I thinl a truely scientific study would be boffo.

 

[Matabiri]

Intrested parties have the opportunity to read the actual journals themselves to get the in-depth details. Is this not the case in all research areas? Perhaps the fact that no striking evidence in favour of the paranormal in SPR journals hasn't made headlines is a result of `media bias' - or perhaps the evidence is not very strong!

But we can only judge by reading the source material, and there are obvious copyright problems in posting published articles free over the internet.

This is the case in all research areas, and some scientific journals can be very expensive indeed. They're also very protective of copyright, for the obvious reason that they, as a journal, have organised the peer-reviewing, editing, and distribution of the article and have to protect their revenue stream.

Try going to, say Elsevier and see how many of their articles you can access for free (obviously if you're at a university, you may have an institutional subscription).

It's also common in the sciences, though, to write to authors asking if you can possibly have a pre-print, but for a subject like this, they may get so many requests that they can't answer them all.

You want to read the paper, find the journal. It's not that unreasonable.

 

[Nasarius]

This is the case in all research areas, and some scientific journals can be very expensive indeed. They're also very protective of copyright, for the obvious reason that they, as a journal, have organised the peer-reviewing, editing, and distribution of the article and have to protect their revenue stream.

Exactly. A journal you can buy for $15 is not a "real" scientific journal, IMO. Most of those run about $1,000 for a year's subscription.

 

[Matabiri]

Exactly. A journal you can buy for $15 is not a "real" scientific journal, IMO. Most of those run about $1,000 for a year's subscription.

€6,000 for the one I need. Which is why my university doesn't get it.

Fortunately they subscribe on-line. Don't know how much that costs.

 

[Thanz]

First off I am not sure the amount I read of $15 is puny or paltry. Second if they have proof of mediumship then they could publish it anywhere, like the discovery of the pion. It would be very news worthy.

You say that the amount may be neither puny nor paltry, while Nasarius is saying we should discount the research becasue the journal it is in is too cheap. What a great argument.

Meanwhile, what you would get in a newspaper would be a summary, at best, of the study - not the study itself.

I suspect a scam, can someone elucidate for me? Unless they are just saying that you can't critique a study unless you buy the magazine.

Again the proof of the prion was available to all, and the method of discovery was published widely in news papers. Same goes for the parity of the weak force.

I don't think that anyone is requiring you to buy the journal - but you should read it if you plan on critiquing it. Refusing to read it but continuing to criticise seems a little less than great critical thinking.

It is like me proclaiming that the new Prince album is garbage, then saying that no, I haven't heard it myself but I have heard about it, and no, I don't want to spend teh $15 to buy it and listen to it. But I still want to proclaim that it sucks.

 

[Dancing David]

Thanz, fair enouh. I just thought it a strange form of argument. As I said I thought that the persom could sumarise some important article.

 

[Loki]

Dancing David/Thanz,

I've covered most of this in other threads (but it's good I suppose to have an 'on-thread' place!).

I don't think that anyone is requiring you to buy the journal -

Of course...

...but you should read it if you plan on critiquing it.

Agreed. However, this all comes from the latest R&R thread, in which several people mentioned they ahve the report and have read it. I made some comments about the 'possible' ways in which the report might be flawed, based upon (a) the previously published protocol that was intended to form the basis of the research and (b) my own personal opinion of the experimenters. I still don't see why this should be considered "uncritical thinking", or why materia3 considers this "astounding" and that it "defies rational explanation".

But I agree that any opinion I have - about the report, the protocol, or the authors - will be better formed if I've read the report. We all agree that my opinions would benefit from reading the report. We disagree that I'm allowed an opinon AT ALL until I've read the report.

And can I just add that by raising potential concerns and questions, I was kind of hoping that any of those that had read the report might post any relevant portions. That doesn't seem to have happened yet.

Refusing to read it but continuing to criticise seems a little less than great critical thinking.

If I was criticising the result, I'd agree. If I'm criticising the proposed protocol I'm not so sure - although obviously their report may address any such criticism, and by failing to read it I'm perhaps tilting at windmills.

And on the general topic of this thread - David seems to be asking three separate but related questions :

1. Should "researchers" charge for access to their research?
2. Should "interested parties" have to pay for access to reports?
3. Can an "interested party" have any opinion on a report if they have never read the report?


I guess if we were hoping for a "perfect world" my answers would be :

1. Yes. A researcher should not be expected to make ALL their data available to anyone, anywhere, free of charge.

2. Sometimes. Interested parties should be able to access a reasonable summary/conclusion (with supporting data) for free. And it seems to me that researchers who believe they have established a major breakthrough should endeavour to maximise the exposure of their results (but that's probably being overly optimistic)

3. Well, I think so!. The report itself is certainly the primary source of information - but it is not the only one. For example, I wouldn't be particularly compelled to pay for the results of a report by Uri Geller into his latest metal-bending adventures - purely on previous track record. Might I be wrong to ignore Uri's report? Sure - and as I read reviews from people who say it seems to be a quality report, I might decide to read it for myself. I may even decide he's proven his case! But I don't accept that I must treat every new claim from Uri as "neutral - judge on it's merits". He hasn't earned that respect.