one of my front tooth was chipped years ago while playing around and some days ago i was feeling sensitive in that tooth i take very good care of my teeth, when i visited dentist he said this tooth will die sooner or later because of trauma it endured the nerves will slowly die and we eventually have to do root canal. i was very disappointed to know that there is nothing i can do to keep that tooth alive
well most of research i did online and the numerous videos i watched about when root canal is necessary tell this as cases that when tooth endured trauma it will slowly die it may take upto 10 years in this case nothing can be done to save tooth
there maybe some experimental approach that i dont know of that may save or heal tooth do you know any?
When i was a kid another kid stood up into my jaw, slamming my top and bottom teeth together in a weird way. My top two front teeth were basically split in half. They reconstructed those broken-off portions with porcelain or whatever and they’ve never needed to do anything else.
If it helps, I bashed my face into a step when I was like 10, cracking one front tooth and traumatizing the other. Neither tooth has needed a root canal. I get the chipped one repaired every ~10 years or so. The other is discolored.
i somewhat know the benefits of the saliva such that it helps heal wound is it really effective to you? did someone recommend this to you or are experimenting this for yourself? has anyone other than you experienced this benefit?\
An individual scientist/researcher (most of them) is in pursuit of truth. Nothing matters, and nothing should matter other than that. For future discoveries, we should make knowledge as accessible as possible. But when an organization forms, it competes for power and superiority. This results in discriminatory actions that cause the overall regression of collective innovation. It is sad to see this happen.
> An individual scientist/researcher (most of them) is in pursuit of truth.
Maybe I'm in a certain type of bubble, but I kind of feel like that's a secondary goal (for many of them), while the first is finding and keeping a position that lets them earn enough money to survive. Some of them are lucky to be able to do both, but quite a lot of them are sacrificing the "pursuit of truth" because otherwise they wouldn't be able to feed themselves by working as a researcher.
i am not talking about people who just do job to survive there comes a point where you achieve all your needs you need something intangible like pursuit of truth/power/authority to validate your existence.
I could blame the people in the institutions, but they were once a student who wanted nothing but to achieve great things, world-changing research. But along the way they tasted power and authority. Science has inherent quality of giving power and control, realizing that every action has consequence, and in this godless world only actions you take matter. If anyone who has experienced the authority knows that it is addictive and it is hard to let go. If anyone (young budding scientists) can challenge that authority you would go to any lengths to prevent that i think this is what is happening here.
There's a long list of researchers who have done horrible things in pursuit of truth. Research ethics exist to remind us that, yes, other things matter.
Of course but that depends on one thing. Are you interested in having an honest conversation or are have you already braced yourself to shit on whatever I will say?
Depends on what you say of course. Keep in mind that someone changing their mind as they learn more is not called lying, but is the definition of science.
Your comment has been flagged and down-voted to oblivion, and I think the "fine, I'll bite" already answers your question. There is not going to be a conversation. :)
Are you aware that you're not paying the authors, but paying the journal, who usually don't pay the authors anything and even demand payment FROM the author to publish their article in the first place? This is not like buying a book, journals are leeches with morally indefensible business models.
Authors decided to pay to these journals and play by their rules in return for something, that have value for them. I respect their choice. However, I also want to have better science with free access. I can reproduce few papers, and publish my work for free, if someone will peer review them for free.
> Authors decided to pay to these journals and play by their rules in return for something, that have value for them. I respect their choice.
Have you ever spoken to anyone who works in academia? Because almost everyone will tell you that they couldn't care less if people get their articles from SciHub. Academia is much uglier than you're romanticizing it to be.
Obviously, someone must buy the paper, reproduce it, compare with original work, and then publish result for free. Same thing as for free software: someone must by a computer, write a software, then publish it on github.
Publishing it on GitHub is optional; you can publish it anywhere accessible. And unlike these journals, it doesn't cost you anything to access free software. In fact, paywalling it makes it unfree.
