You can use arrow keys to navigate in the map.
Hiding them behind a pay wall increases ignorance.
There's no way anyone without at least a college education in sciences who can understand those papers. that's not the type of stuff ignorant people would read to not be ignorant anymore.
Hiding them behind a pay wall also reduces layman articles by journalists or bloggers.
I don't have a college education in sciences. I read multiple scientific papers per week.
I look up words as often as I do when I read non-fiction. It's not hard.
Hiding them behind a paywall also reduces access to those WITH the necessary education to make use of them .
as long as the person(s) who wrote the article agrees to offer it for free
The person responsible for the article has the right the fruits of his labour and what to do with it.
they are usually funded by public organizations and/or taxes.
There are ways around the paywall ; ).
Only when the production or work put into a scientific article was non-existent can this be free.
Obviously this is self-contradictory.
Scientists don't generally get paid for publishing their articles.
There are many free publication methods.
The decision whether to publish a scientific article for free or not should be up to the scientist responsible for the article. The premise ''it should be free'' is meaningless, since the decision lies with the scientist, not the consumer.
Whether they should be published for free or not is not meaningless. It is a moral/ethical argument.
It is morally/ethically wrong to withhold information that can help or save peoples lives.
I think this premise should be at the root of the argument.
I don’t understand how it is related to the premise it is currently attached.
It is relevant to the root argument.
It is not because something is morally wrong, that it is meaningless, and you only wrote a reason for it to be morally wrong.
It is a bad use of the word "meaningless". (and i want it to keep its literal meaning, because it is a pretty useful word)