[Luc]

> I don't understand why I was downvoted for asking a question.

Because your question, in the context of the thread, appeared to imply you think Elsevier and co. are doing something essential, in return for their 40% profit margins resulting in billions (!) of profit per year. Taken by itself it's an interesting question.

[emotionalcode]

I don't really know, honestly. When groups are arguing between opposing world views, all of which can appear equally likely depending on data selection, I find that absolutely frightening that our current scientific process of peer review can not help us tell our heads from our asses. Or it does so often enough, that it's doing a very good job at keeping the bulk of knowledge stable. Science can be frightening.

Personally, I think it might take a lot more time than I've been alive to come close to a solution. I don't feel comfortable having an opinion on this, but I'm fine having questions. I don't intend to make implications with my questions, they are not consciously intentionally leading.

[Luc]

It's only been about 15 generations since the time of Galileo. I think science'll muddle through even if a couple of generations are wasted on dead-ends along the way.

[emotionalcode]

There's stuff you expect (or have read, heard, thought about, observed) science to be about, and there's stuff you don't expect science to be about. The stuff you don't expect science to be about is the stuff that concerns me.

I don't know whether I can convey the change in understandings I've had about science since leaving academia. I don't want it to be typical, nor do I want it to be atypical in that the definition of atypical is dependent on the opposite of what is typical.