This might be really good for the conversation on origins.
I have thought about this recently.
in the old days the only way to get your stuff noticed/read , including desired audience, was to publish in hard materials. Books/papers etc.
yet today information moves on the air. so why is not the internet just as much a publisher as anything in human history?
if someone writes on PS a great case, idea, criticism, defence in a scientific matter and it tAKES OFF and becomes famous then why, in atomic structure, is it not OFFICIALLY a published thing??
PS is a publisher. literally.
Therefore it could only be what counts as high end publishing WHERE a methodology/rules is in force.
yet its possible, with future cases, the science publishing industry will be overturned by the internet.
If everyone reads your stuff then who needs a publisher? Its published!!
I very much agree with you here. See for example: Heliocentric Certainty Against a Bottleneck of Two?. This was literally one of the reasons we started the forum. See? Post #61.
We are in shifting times…
scientific publishing started out as letters back and forth between scientists, and books, then meetings. For a long time now it has been journals. It does seem it is going to go through a revolution before my career is over. Even @Robert_Byers sees it coming…
The idea of “publish first, curate second” is a bit scary. I fully admit I am biased by the fear of change, but there still seems to be some major problems with that approach. Here are just a few that come to mind:
Really bad papers. People will turn out low quality papers nearly every week outlining their most recent lab data in order to beat others to press.
The public may not understand the difference between published science and peer reviewed science. It’s already difficult enough to explain the difference between really bad secondary press articles and the actual primary scientific papers.
Less accountability. If publishing turns into the Wild West, there will be less accountability for fudged, misleading, or p hacking.
To be honest, I could be wrong on all of these points. What do others think?
All three points are right. yet now is heaps of bad papers. The public never questions any claim of scientific aithority unless led to it.
The standard is a issue. Yet the freedom of the internet will make better science.
Indeed if peer reviewed NOW matters relative to any sciency thing written then there would be no difference.
loads of perr reviewed stuff is worthless and loads of great stuff was never peer reviewed.
The peerage is not all that.
The publishing IN FACT down on the internet makes a smarter world.
let the public use its intelligence to weigh the csase.
in fact it might make a sharper public and stop small circles dominating conclusions.
thats why evolutionism got away for years without serious reflection.
Bring it before the public and the attrition of truth, by way of common intelligence, will destroy error.
So long Darwin