←
↑
→
You can use arrow keys to navigate in the map.
Loading tree...
because
score: 10
Hiding them behind a pay wall increases ignorance.
but
score: -3
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.
but
score: 2
Hiding them behind a pay wall also reduces layman articles by journalists or bloggers.
but
score: 1
I don't have a college education in sciences. I read multiple scientific papers per week.
but
score: 1
Hiding them behind a paywall also reduces access to those WITH the necessary education to make use of them .
2 branch
‒
0 branch
‒
however
score: 6
as long as the person(s) who wrote the article agrees to offer it for free
sources:
who pays for the medium?
4 supporters.
because
score: 1
The person responsible for the article has the right the fruits of his labour and what to do with it.
0 branch
‒
because
score: 4
they are usually funded by public organizations and/or taxes.
however
score: 1
There are ways around the paywall ; ).
but
score: -2
Only when the production or work put into a scientific article was non-existent can this be free.
but
score: 3
Scientists don't generally get paid for publishing their articles.
but
score: -2
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.
but
score: 2
Whether they should be published for free or not is not meaningless. It is a moral/ethical argument.
1 fallacy reported.
Fallacy Of Is To Ought
Tries to link morality/ethics with what he thinks someone else should do with the fruits of their labour.
ubister
1 supporter.
because
score: 1
It is morally/ethically wrong to withhold information that can help or save peoples lives.
however
score: 3
I think this premise should be at the root of the argument.
because
score: 1
I don’t understand how it is related to the premise it is currently attached.
because
score: 1
It is relevant to the root argument.
1 branch
‒
0 branch
‒
0 branch
‒
but
score: 1
It is not because something is morally wrong, that it is meaningless, and you only wrote a reason for it to be morally wrong.
1 branch
‒
0 branch
‒
0 branch
‒
4 branch
‒
×
The argument is too complex. You can switch to list view.
cozm
