>>12529279nice copypasta lmao, sounds like it came straight from reddit with the lack of self-awareness and vindictive attitude
on a serious note though:
science is for everyone, yes, and anyone can go and read scientific studies published in journals
>inb4 retarded rebuttal about how journals are paywalled so not everyone canyou also have to pay for books, so in that regard not everyone can access books either
but just like with books (libgen, public libraries), there are other alternatives for accessing paywalled journals such as sci-hub, openaccessbutton, etc.
>inb4 retarded rebuttal about how studies are too difficult to readin fields such as evolutionary biology and any of the social sciences they aren't actually that hard to read
my point about bringing up the fact that it's a book is because books are targetted at the average person (i.e. pop science)
as such they often offer very simplistic, outdated, misrepresented, and sometimes even outright false representations of the science at hand
with a study published in a journal on the other hand, it is written to accurately represent the science and doesn't make simplifications
>Oh, and if you actually read papers you would know that most good researchers reference both books and articles.correct, however they cite books for established and uncontroversial research (as a way to represent the "state of things") and not new and controversial theories
if you had actually read any papers in detail you would notice that most of the citations to books occur in the introduction of the paper where they give a brief summary of the motivations, etc., while the latter half of the paper (containing the meat and potatoes of the study) cites other studies far more frequently
(1/2)
