Reductionist and proud of it.
Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain
The work of scientists is being scrutinized all the time.
Are you afraid there are much more genius guys out there that might scrutinize your work (no offense please, just being frank)
And this layman genius who understands science without effort or study, is just a myth believed by people who have an antagonistic attitude towards scientists.
I think you're being too 'conservative' about this issue. We, as lay people would be better believe people who are in this field. If Einstein says so, yes we will believe. If Stephen Hawkings said he does not agree, we will believe it too because we're just "little flies tryng to land on a golden platter", craving for knowledge. But if you denied it to us because you think we're not capable absorbing your idea, you're just saying we're just 'flies flying around a ****". (Apology for using this word)
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p67.htm.) You know, lay people are like that , sometimes they have 'wild imaginations'
I'm just wondering 'whose lay persons' are we talking here? A fisherman who's busy to catch a fish to feed his family who couldn't afford tyo go to school to study science or people who are interested in science but not fortunate enough to be in the high hills because of unexpected circumstances? But still, I love science.
The bad idea is not for the laymen to comment, but to decide what should be accepted as scientifically supported.
This is about a "Wiki-journal" where laymen are supposed to publish comments and criticism of scientists' work. My point is that is pointless, because to make it worthwhile you have to restrict it to people who actually understand the subject. And that would make it undistinguishable from the current journals.
Without restrictions, it will end up like woo-woo sites and fora.
If you crave for knowledge, what are you doing to learn? Do you expect scientists to chase you down the street to serve you easily-digestible bits of knowledge on a silver platter?
This is my final 'say'. I respect your 'opinions' papageno but it seems we're not on the same 'wavelength'.
I just laid down my reasons and it's up to the people, who would agree to me or not. Yes, I understood it well,there's no way that the public should meddle on the affairs of scientists, if that it appears to you... Have a good day. Thanks for the time you spend in replying to my comments.
A publicly reviewed interactive science journal.
Consensus would appear to suggest a general dislike for the idea, most posters run the gambit between it being impractical to impossible, with ridicule at the far end of the spectrum. It may be interesting to see what comes to pass.
For those of us still alive, let us visit this subject again in, say, twenty years from now
Thanks everyone for your time and feedback.
I guess that the vast majority of people who read/listen/watch such media would not be able to take in the level of detail, math and (inevitably) specialized language that appears in scientific journals.