Do you even understand WHY he refused the prize? It was because correct work shouldn’t have to be rewarded (and because Hamilton’s work was equal to his). That doesn’t negate the fact that the work still needs to be reviewed and be reproducible (ie, peer reviewed), it just means let’s not waste time and money standing around and applauding ourselves.
That still doesn’t have anything to do with any of the previous comments.
The resources you mentioned are hosted through Cornell by volunteers (who have other full time jobs), presumably Cornell has a rigorous in-house hosting system. And this is only for receiving the articles submitted to them that are pre- and post-print, they do not solicit articles or comments, nor do they have management of any journal publications or events.
I truly do not think you are grasping the enormity of the tasks required to run a journal. It is not simply forwarding the article to peer reviewers and then hosting it. There are legal aspects that go along with managing a journal, recruiting a review board for each article (making sure they are experts in the field, not just random reviewers), getting comments on each article, maintaining a job board for a student chapter, hosting events, hosting annual or biannual conferences, and so many more things. Each article doesn’t just get put up online, it literally needs to be PUBLISHED which comes with it’s own aspects, isbn numbers, doi number, fees, etc.
The paywall includes paying for the specific article, or becoming a member of the journal. Being member of the journal unlocks ALL articles in the journal (which didn’t used to be the case prior to digital editions. I still have my physical journals editions of many journals I’m a member of because it used to be you only had access to the articles from the years you were actually a member and were sent the physical copies). Many people that publish will be members of the journal which lowers the cost to submit articles significantly, while also giving them access to the articles published. Additionally, instead of looking solely at the journal for the article, most people know to look at the source of the research for the PDF (ie, look for the author’s university site or personal page to look for a link to a PDF) because generally whoever paid for the research wants the research to be available to be read, especially if it was paid for by taxpayers. And STILL if you find an article that you don’t have access to, and your university is not a member to the journal or local library is not a member and neither can do an interlibrary loan for it, you can STILL simply email the author and ask if they can send it to you and chances are they will be more than willing.
So I’m still not entirely sure what the issue is, except an incredibly immature and naive desire to complain about information not being open access because grr I’ve been told all capitalism is bad, so I must apply it to everything because I don’t know how to actually look for information and don’t know how to think for myself grrr.
Except those are for pre-print and post-print and don’t offer peer review
The reviewers are not compensated, but the editorial staff that maintain the journal are (part of which is recruiting and maintaining a reviewing board, soliciting comments, sending articles for review/rewrite, etc), as well as the staff that organize and put together the conferences that each journal hosts, and all other aspects of maintaining a journal such as partnerships with libraries and schools, memberships lists, etc. Did you think the fee only covered the Internet hosting?
Do you not write the publishing fees into your grant proposals? And the paywall is just to access through the journal, you can generally just email the author and they will send you a PDF of the work - because the whole point is for the work to be known about and referenced in more work, which can only be done if it’s read. The work being in the journal means that it’s been peer-reviewed and is scientifically rigorous (which is part of what the fee covers)
Seriously. I read this and all I could think was “what a dick”.
Disclaimer, I have not read the full source material and am only basing this off the quoted image.
I fully understand not being interested in having to attract your own funding, it’s awful. But the rest of it is not limited to the academic or scientific pursuits. Being a decent enough person so people want to support you? Developing good work that people want to hear about it (ie conferences)? (By the way, you submit your own work to conferences and they are judged to be invited blindly, ie names removed), being able to hold your tongue when you know someone is wrong in order to keep peace? Understanding that hierarchy exists?
These are not things that are antithesis to good science, and if no one had ever taught her these things that’s a failing on her younger days.
if something doesn’t have a concept of ethics, that doesn’t make its unethical actions unethical. If it did, teaching ethics would be unnecessary
Have you taken an Ethics class? You don’t learn one set of rules for life and then you are done (boy, life would be so easy if that were the case!!). You learn Kantian philosophy, Consequentialism, Deontology, Utilitarianism…just to name a few. You learn how philosophy comes in to play and how to recognize the patterns. Knowing these can relate to understanding where someone (or in this discussion, the bear/fox/deer/etc) places it’s moral compass to better understand it’s viewpoint. The bear may not understand ethics, but it still has a moral compass that you can tease out.
So the question remains: What power holds these species’ moral compasses? Does a bear/fox/deer/etc hold their own moral compass? If so, how do we know what they consider to be moral in order for these actions to be morally questionable? Or are you holding your morals up to them?
I truly have never heard that response!
What power holds these species’ moral compasses? For many people it’s their god or their religion (which could be Gaia/earth), for others it’s others around them, for others including me it’s themselves.
Does a bear/fox/deer/etc hold their own moral compass? If so, how do we know what they consider to be moral in order for these actions to be morally questionable? Do they hold themselves to your morals (ie, others comparing themselves to those around them), or are you holding your morals up to them?
So the bears, foxes, deer, egrets, etc are also being unethical and should be damned? Because they absolutely can live without meat but chose to hunt.
I was showing that your statements are incorrect. That hunting is not a necessity because we are omnivores. But it’s not a necessity for the bear either, they are also omnivores.
Therefore, is hunting off the table for us? Both of your statements “eat meat to survive” and “eat x exotic animal” have been proven extreme false hyperboles that don’t relate to the question at hand.
Ok, but what you said tried to toe the line while actually using absolute hyperboles to prove neither point.
Keep in mind we live in a world where it’s normal to go from “we need meat to survive” to “let’s eat X exotic animal that absolutely doesn’t have to be the one to sustain us”.
We actually don’t need meat to survive. While there are species that are indeed obligate carnivores or ones that whose digestive system is more efficient with meat proteins, we are omnivores. It’s even been shown that body builders and athletes can sustain themselves on a vegan diet.
“let’s eat X exotic animal that absolutely doesn’t have to be the one to sustain us”.
While some people get a thrill out of eating the highly illegal species, turning new species into a new food item can be a boon to conservation. Lionfish never used to live in the Florida Keys, then one popped up, then a handful, then all the sudden they were taking over whole reefs and the native species had no where to live. There was no way to get rid of them, they hide under the outcroppings of the reefs, they can’t be caught on a line, no gillnetting, they have to be speared which is NOT easy as government operation or some sort of eradication program. Finally, it caught on how delicious they are and the area started teaching people how to handle the spines and the filet around the venom glands in order to cook them, and it took off like crazy and everyone was in the water to get them! The population hasn’t declined, but it’s somewhat leveled so the local marine species can at least get a toehold again.
And this isn’t the only species with a story like this. So taking on exotic species (plant and animal) in your diet can indeed be a good thing for conservation.
But, the point is I asked if hunting was off the table for us as a species despite it occurring in nature, and if so was it due to our intellect? You responded with hyperboles on both ends that don’t provide an answer.
I just tried looking for you, and the most up to date I could find was for 2017. That’s disappointing, but slightly out of date is better than nothing.
The only reason it hasn’t caught on is because they are very difficult to catch (spear) and even more difficult to prepare (venom glands). They are unbelievably delicious, but even so, I’m not going to trust a chef a don’t know to be sure he didn’t pierce one of those glands while preparing it. I’ll trust myself or one of my friends that I no for 100% certain can do it right. So even though a handful of restaurants were offering it in the Keys and Miami, you’ll really see people catching it themselves and preparing it just to be sure.
He’s my conundrum with that. Other species will not go after animals that are close to death. I’ve worked with a lot of wild animals. The thinking is that if it is dead or close to death they will leave it to the scavengers since they don’t want to risk contracting whatever killed it. Bears, eagles, so many animals are going to hunt healthy fish - bears specifically go after the salmon about to spawn and pass on their genes.
Hunting is part of nature, and not just with fish.
I understand the issue with industrialized/commercial kills, but is hunting also off the table in your train of thought? I mean this as a genuine question, not an attack, I know tone of voice is often lost through text.
Is hunting/fishing off the table for us as the species with higher intellect? We do not have as robust immune systems as the scavengers of nature do, so waiting for things to be in a position near death is worrisome to me. Whereas hunting/fishing (again, not the industrialized practice, but individual) is how conservation of species was born by developing species limits and it’s how some species levels continue to be kept in check (for instance, invasive lion fish in the US South East)
We have also invented ways to do it more sustainably, and even have handy wallet sized Sustainable Seafood Lists for each region of the US to make sure you make sustainable choices when eating at restaurants or purchasing at the market
Seafood Watch Guides
Fish can and do eat you
You are deliberately not answering the question.
“If every person that ate fish was out there…” exactly - they purchase fish caught commercially because either they don’t know how to catch their own fish or they don’t have access to catch their own fish (access either with time, money, or physically). Commercial fishing solves that by precisely doing it “at scale a lot more efficiently” as you pointed out and ships the fish to where people will purchase it.
I didn’t ask “what if everyone went out and did it themselves”
I asked your thoughts on people who DO fish for themselves, or those using traditional fishing practices.
OP didn’t specify commercial fishing. What about traditional fishing practices, or a singular fisher catching for himself/family?
I really don’t think you have a grasp on what his view actually were - and people tend to try to twist what little is out there from him into what they want it to mean. Being disillusioned by the infighting for credit amongst his peers is not the same as having an issue with publishing. There’s nothing in that argument that says publishing or the industry is the issue - just the arguing for credit. The only information he gave about why he stopped publishing was that he didn’t want to be in the public eye like he was on display like he was in a zoo by being offered rewards.