DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FUNDAY
HTML https://funday.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: CNPS Structured Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 187--------------------------------------------------
CNPS General Discussion
By: Admin Date: April 22, 2017, 1:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Request New Forum Section
(from 9. CNPS Work Groups › CNPS Forum)
(04-19-2017, 09:42 AM (This post was last modified: 04-19-2017,
10:48 AM by Lloyd Kinder.)
I'd like to have a new forum section on Major Unexplained
Science Facts & Alternative Models.
As an example, a major unexplained fact is that sedimentary rock
strata are mostly separated over large areas into 3 major types,
sandstone, claystone & limestone. Mainstream theory claims that
the strata were deposited slowly over thousands and millions of
years. But that would mean that over large areas only one type
of sediment was deposited for many thousands of years, followed
by many thousands of years of another type of sediment, etc. A
better explanation is that the strata were separated during
major flooding over very short time spans. (This would lead to
the issue of radiometric dating, but there is a better
explanation for that as well.)
Some other brief examples relate to universe expansion, black
holes, quasars, neutron stars, science math, gravity, star and
planet and galaxy formation etc, magnetic fields, chemistry,
biology etc.
My idea is just to list everything briefly, including brief
arguments, like with the first example above, and provide links
to the best, more thorough discussions elsewhere, preferably in
the CNPS Wiki.
Each unexplained fact could be given a name and listed
alphabetically as well as by topic hierarchy.
-----
LK Ideas for Organizing a Wiki
(April 22 ca 10:30 AM)
1. Plans to Improve the Scientific Method
2. List Major Fields of Science
3. List Major Science Facts & Flaws for Main CNPS Wiki Topics
1. Plans to Improve the Scientific Method
The Scientific Method involves:
1.1. making accurate observations of reality;
--- [I just happened to notice that reality even includes things
like imagination too.]
1.2. making a hypothesis to attempt to explain observations;
1.3. testing the hypothesis by experiment, using accurate and
relevant measurements, using logic and, if needed, math as well,
and taking relevant, accurate notes of all procedures involved,
to determine if the hypothesis is contradicted;
1.4. revising the hypothesis and the experiment, if contradicted
[during testing];
1.5. publishing the experiment;
1.6. getting 2 or more unaffiliated parties to replicate a
successful experiment;
1.7. publishing the hypothesis as a probable fact and a
scientific discovery, if all experiments are successful; and
1.8. using the discovery to increase control over nature for the
purpose of improving the conditions of society.
---
Common errors that undermine the Scientific Method are:
1.1. making inaccurate observations of reality;
1.2. making an untestable hypothesis;
1.3. misusing logic or math in the experiment;
1.4. recording false or inaccurate data, or taking inaccurate
notes;
1.5. suppressing potentially useful experiments;
1.6. failing to replicate an experiment by unaffiliated parties;
1.7. publishing false or misleading statements about experiments
or experimenters; and
1.8. misusing scientific findings for the detriment of society.
---
Human imperfection results in many experiments being done
improperly, or reported on inaccurately, or suppressed unfairly.
Sociology needs to study these problems and devise means to
prevent abuse of science.
2. List Major Fields of Science
Cosmology, Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, Geology,
Catastrophism, Paleontology, Archeology, Mythology, Biology,
Neurology, Psychology, Sociology, Parapsychology
3. List Major Science Facts & Flaws
(See Sample Wiki thread.)
-----
Paraphrasing Bruce's Forum/Wiki Ideas
[Prior note to Bruce:] I wanted to start working on a CNPS Wiki
Outline, but I can't find anywhere on the CNPS forum, so I
started doing it on my private forum at
HTML http://funday.createaforum.com/new-board/cnps-wiki-outline
.
Here's my rephrasing of your suggestions for the CNPS structured
forum, to be followed by my comments.
a. Tell readers the goal is to produce one or more papers and
Wikis.
- Each would have multiple identified authors, comments, and
possibly subjections.
- So the Wikis and papers would look like conventional academic
material.
- Wiki members have a choice to create a Wiki in conventional
Wiki format
or do it using my Word template then give it to a Wiki editor
LK Forum Request:
1. Name Major Science Flaws
2. & briefly describe the Flaws
3. & briefly describe the most promising alternative theories or
facts
- For #1 have a separate thread for each significant flaw
- Compose a list of flaws
- Ask readers to submit other flaws &/or alternative theories
- Post each submitter’s name with their submissions- Edit & post
flaws alongside proposed alternative theories
b. To structure the topic put it into the forum as 3 co-located
threads.
ba. "Topic" - discussion (for unedited input, only lightly
moderated);
bb. "Topic" - external inputs (for edited questions, challenges,
clarifications and other stimulus to stimulate scientific
discussion, containing only one or few posts);
bc. "Topic" - summary and coordination (for edited summaries to
steer the discussion, with sections like:
what is the current point being discussed;
what are people hung up on;
what needs to be discussed;
what accomplishments have been made so far;
special assignments etc.
- Create an outline of the local discussion & put it in your
“coordination” post. - Use Mark’s MIT MAP concepts:
Questions ( ? ),
Ideas ( lightbulb),
pros and cons (thumbs up and down ) etc.
- See the user guide I made for the MAP that shows all his
features.
- Add in new heading functions as appropriate:
Lines just as general outline headings: e.g. “Physics – General
Principles”;
Subheadings: e.g. “What have others said about this?” or “This
is what the discussion has concluded so far on this point”
My comments: I'm willing to experiment with that idea, if you or
we can get at least 2 or 3 people involved in trying it out. It
seems a bit complicated and it's not clear what the payoff would
be. I'm wanting to work on listing major science flaws and maybe
asking others to contribute to the list, because the payoff
would seem to be correcting major flaws and making them
well-known and contributing to science progress, assuming a
popular website can be developed.
Aether Lattice Holes Theory
LST: I started reading your LST yesterday & it seems a little
promising. I don't understand how dislocations would have mass
etc, but I'm open-minded. So far, LST doesn't seem likely to
explain how atoms could spin. I favor the idea that electrons
and neutrons are connected to protons and the whole atom has to
be balanced in order to spin. And unbalanced atoms fly apart,
which is radioactivity. I haven't read enough to see if you
covered radioactivity etc.
DEMOCRACY:
A day or two ago I mentioned some of my work with Sociocracy,
CNVC etc. Then synchronicity hit. One of the members of the
group chat in 2006 from Sri Lanka emailed me last night saying
he uses NVC in his social work and he wants to learn more by
taking a class in Denmark in June. He said he's working with
leaders of his country to try to prevent more war there, after
the 25 year war that ended a few years ago. He said he lost many
friends and relatives in the war. Your democracy proposal might
be something they could benefit a lot from. It seems like it
would work well, but have you considered how to persuade anyone
to adopt it in the first place? Most people who run for public
office seem to be mainly interested in how they can benefit just
themselves and seldom seem much concerned about improving
conditions for the public. CELDF seems to have some experience
with the persuasion part by actually having gotten a number of
communities to adopt some of their suggestions for local
ordinances. I think CELDF also is trying to work with other
countries too, so I guess I should contact them about my Sri
Lanka friend. Should I also give him suggestions from you?
#Post#: 189--------------------------------------------------
INVITE
By: Admin Date: April 23, 2017, 11:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
TB Members possibly interested in helping Improve Science:
bdw000, BirdyNumNums, Brigit Bara, Chan Rasjid, chut, Cubit32,
D_Archer, dd6, Elder, fractal-geoff, GaryN, GenesisAria, Grey
Cloud, jacmac, JCG, JeffreyW, JHL, jimmcginn, Keith Ness,
Kuldebar, Melusine, philalethes, Phorce, phyllotaxis, Pi sees,
Plasmatic, pln2bz, popster1, RayTomes, Roshi, Rushthezeppelin,
saul, seasmith, Solar, Sparky, StefanR, trevbus, Webbman,
Zelectric, ZenMonkeyNZ, Zyxzevn
Online scientific discourse is broken and it can be fixed
HTML http://www.thunderbolts.inf
o/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=14667
Scientific bias prevents scientific progress
HTML http://www.thunderbolts.inf
o/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16408
Chris Reeve's et al Ideas to Improve Science Discourse
HTML http://www.thunderbolts.inf
o/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16016
#Post#: 190--------------------------------------------------
RESOURCES
By: Admin Date: April 23, 2017, 11:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
CIA World Factbook
HTML https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook
PubChem
HTML http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
PDR Health
HTML http://pdrhealth.com/home/home.aspx
FactBites
HTML http://www.factbites.com/contact_us.php
-----
Torching the Modern-Day Library of Alexandria
HTML https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/04/the-tragedy-of-google-books/523320
HTML https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/04/the-tragedy-of-google-books/523320
China to launch own encyclopaedia to rival Wikipedia
HTML https://phys.org/news/2017-05-china-encyclopaedia-rival-wikipedia.html
HTML https://phys.org/news/2017-05-china-encyclopaedia-rival-wikipedia.html
#Post#: 193--------------------------------------------------
Re: DISCUSSION
By: Admin Date: May 7, 2017, 12:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi Bruce.
Regarding Skype, my computer no longer has enough space for it.
If you'd like live discussion, we could use a chat room, such as
at
HTML http://chatzy.com/52491623534005
That way we'd also have a record of the discussion. If that's
okay with you, when would you like to try it?
BN re Specific Issue/s
You said the next step is to focus on a specific issue that is
promising for making progress: either join a popular discussion,
or seek to attract people to an issue.
I wrote a letter to the editor of NCGT (New Concepts in Global
Tectonics) Journal about Catastrophism a few days ago and it was
accepted for publication in their next quarterly issue in June.
The editor said what I wrote is important and original. More
specifically the topic was what can explain the fact that
sedimentary rock strata are separated into individual rock
types, i.e. sandstones, claystones and limestones, over large
areas. I argued that it's highly improbable that slow erosion
and minor flooding could have deposited only one sediment type
for thousands of years over large areas, e.g. sand, followed by
thousands of years of only one other type, e.g. clay, etc. I
suggested that only flooding, as by megatsunamis, could separate
sediment types, and that tidal forces and impacts could account
for megatsunamis.
I posted more details in a new thread at
HTML http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=141
Would you care to pursue that topic?
If you are able to contact CNPS members, I could help you write
up a message to send them inviting them to join the discussion
on the forum.
I'd also like to have the discussion on a couple of other forums
and then I'd post useful comments onto the CNPS forum.
What do you think?
I'm also willing to work with other topics. It might be feasible
to work on two or more topics at the same time. Do you have
other topics to suggest? I have a list of topics, but I haven't
found where I posted them yet.
-----
Today, Bruce said:
Phone
I only suggested Skype because it has such good sound quality.
Regular phone would be fine as well. Good time to talk is
between 4:30 - 8:00p. I need to set a time so I can steer other
activities around it. Tonight or any night this week are
currently open.
Catastrophism Topic
I'm not strong on tectonic issues. So, I don't think I'd be
helpful there. There is a large following on Expansion
Tectonics. So, a way to find people for your ideas is to post a
request on that forum. A second way is to compose an article for
the monthly newsletter that goes to all the members. If you
aren't getting the newsletter, send a note directly to David de
Hilster and tell him. I only found out about the news letter
last month, and I've been a member for over a year. Check the
newsletter for style and length of the article. Third, there is
a blog on the main website. That's also a way to reach a lot of
members. That said, I never read them because I don't have time.
As for you comment on sedimentary rock strata, I thought the
answer to your question was resolved a long time ago. It would
have been one of the first to be addressed. Without a good
answer, the whole field of sediment geology would not have come
together. From what I remember, large thickness, uniform content
layers can only form in large bodies of water. The rivers
feeding that body of water deliver a mix of sediments in which
the largest particle size depends on the flow rate of the rivers
close to the body of water. Buoyancy and currents in the large
body of water then act as separators.
I have a few toys called sand art that demonstrate the principle
well. The one shown here is from www.bitsandpieces.com/ $11.00
When you flip the frame, the sand separates into clear layers.
But a lot of sedimentary rock is conglomerate. To make your
point, I think you'd have to first do some literature analysis
on the history of this topic. If you found it was not well
answered, I'd start with an announcement of that fact, based on
your analysis.
LK's List of Topics
I found a post of yours that has a lot of topics. Is this the
one you were looking for? If so, you can't find it because I
removed it from active until we sorted out the CNPS Wiki issue.
I thought I told you that awhile back. If not, I apologize. But
I would have still broken this post into separate posts. If I
was going to do that, I would have asked you to do it. And that
is still a good plan:
A. Don't post on the Wiki until CNPS settles down on it.
B. If you want to post on Plans to Improve the Scientific
Method, do that under 3.3 Philosophy of Science. I put a new
forum in there for you: The Scientific Method.
C. Your list of Major Scientific Fields is actually the
foundation for my outline numbering. What deviates from that
right now is the history of CNPS member interest in the past. If
the forum takes hold, it will eventually include all the fields
you listed. Right now, many have no interest or are included
under other headings.
D. The list of facts and flaws is one of the issues I wanted to
talk to you about directly.
"The purpose of this thread is to discuss and help plan the CNPS
Wiki for Science Improvement."
(See my CNPS Wiki thread)
-----
Hi Bruce. I'm trying to keep track of our discussion at
HTML http://funday.createaforum.com/new-board/d
I don't know if you registered for that forum, but you don't
need to now. I didn't realize previously that the board wasn't
accessible to the public. But now I'm pretty sure it is, since I
changed the setting.
You said my "list of facts and flaws is one of the issues [you]
wanted to talk to [me] about directly." I prefer not to use the
phone, unless necessary, so let me know if you think it's
necessary. Otherwise, I'm willing to discuss that here or in the
chat room. I'm in the Central Time zone.
You said you found my List of Topics post. I also have it copied
at
HTML http://funday.createaforum.com/new-board/cnps-wiki-outline<br
/>but yes, that's the same one.
Thanks for the new forum for The Scientific Method.
For the Catastrophism topic, I plan, as you suggest, to contact
the Expansion Tectonics forum and also "compose an article for
the monthly newsletter" and ask David about getting it and I'll
check out the blog. I also plan to bring up the issue on 2 other
forums. I'll try to start tomorrow, Monday.
-----
May 8, 9AM
rather than test my structured approach on the CNPS Forum, let
do a test right here on FUNDAY where you have complete control
of it. Let me summarize the approach specifically for this
effort: (I will use the heading terminology from FUNDAY)
Start out by renaming General Category CNPS Wiki to CNPS
Structured Discussion
Under that Category, create 2 new Subjects: CNPS - Summary
and Coordination, CNPS - External Inputs. Lock them for Admin
editing only. If you can order them at the top of the subject
list, that is best.
Rename DISCUSSION, to CNPS - General Discussion.
Eliminate CNPS WIKI OUTLINE as a subject and put that post
in the General Discussion.
Create a post for the CNPS - Summary and Coordination
subject titled: FOCUS OF THE DISCUSSION. This is where you
provide "play by play" guidance about what is going on and where
attention is needed. It is essentially telling readers what is
going on and how to jump into the discussion. There will be a
separate paragraph for each of the subjects listed in the next
task. When you complete a review for the next task, come back to
this post and create a paragraph for it.
Now you're ready to start Facilitating the discussion. Start
reading the posts from the earliest date. The first one is the
CNPS WIKI OUTLINE post on April 22. This is the post with 4
subjects in it. So, your next task is to create a Post for the
Summary and Coordination subject. Title this Post: SUBJECTS
UNDER DISCUSSION. This will NOT be a one time post. You will go
back and edit this post over and over. The content of the post
will essentially be an outline of the subjects you find in all
the posts. So, after reading the CNPS WIKI OUTLINE post from the
general discussion string, you would create the following
outline: (note the structure list is in alphabetical order. As
new posts raise new topics, edit the list.)
Science - Facts: { I don't know how to describe your goal
for this. But put that here. }
Science - Flaws: For what specific scientific topics or
issues do critical thinkers believe the mainstream presents a
wrong conclusion. What is a reference that presents a critical
thinking challenge.
Science - Structure: What are the Major Fields of Science
being discussed by CNPS members, Where can the discussions be
found.
Scientific Method: What it is; what are its problems; how
can it be improved
Wikis: writing Wikis for CNPS
Now create a coordination subject post for each of these
topics. Again, this is for your edit only. Each of these would
look similar to your Outline & Sources post dated April 23
12:19p The organization of each post would be related to the
description included in the "subjects under discussion" list.
Once you get all of this in place, your effort is reduced to
summarizing activity and coaching.
This should go pretty quickly because all you will be doing is
organizing the material that has already been posted.
-----
2PM May 8: I told BN I restructured this forum as he advised.
But I'd like to start inviting people to discussion of the
Catastrophism topic and I want to do that on the CNPS forum, not
here. I need to be able to read my own posts there, so when can
I do that?
-----
5:40PM: Okay, I tried to post in various places. In 6. Earth
Sciences I'm able to post under "discussion" and under "Surge
Tectonics" and see my posts. But I can't post anywhere else
there without waiting for moderation.
I need to be able to see my posts right away under "summary and
coordination" and under "external inputs and documents".
And I probably need to be able to start new threads for other
Earth Sciences topics.
Also, other members need to be able to see their posts right
away in that section 6 in the discussion threads. If they can't
see and edit their posts right away, they'll very likely leave
and not return. I don't want to invite people until at least
that forum section 6 is user friendly, as in being able to see
and edit their own posts.
You said before that I'd be able to moderate that and maybe some
other sections. So, if anyone spams or trolls, I could delete
them. Am I still to have that ability?
#Post#: 197--------------------------------------------------
Message to Dave Talbott re Wiki
By: Admin Date: May 11, 2017, 5:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
5/11, 5PM
>Dave (Talbott). Glad to see your replies to Grey Cloud and
Norman in Norman's NIAMI thread. Norman tried to argue with me
in my thread, Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysms, when I
discussed myths, that the ancients were referring to the Milky
Way. I asked him to start a different thread to discuss that,
because I considered it off-topic. He got upset once when I
posted an announcement on his thread, so I've stayed away since
then, though I read what you wrote there lately.
I'm working with Bruce Nappi at CNPS. He wants to set up the
CNPS forum for structured discussions for the purpose of
collaborating on science papers for an upcoming CNPS Wiki for
Alternative Science. I figure it may lead to a more efficient
process.
I started a thread called, Need Data to Help Create Alternative
Science Wiki, on this forum at
HTML http://www.thunderbolts.inf
o/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16714&p=119561#p119561
to invite members to contribute data on any of several topics,
including ancient myths. I've seen myths about the Great Flood
organized in a table that easily showed the similarities and
differences among many Flood myths worldwide. It seems that all
ancient myths could be organized in similar tables and would
then make the archetypes and real meanings more obvious. Do you
think that's possibly true? If so, I suppose a team might need
to prioritize a list of archetypes or something to put into such
tables. What do you think about that? Or about the invitation to
members to collaborate for the CNPS Wiki? I have gotten a
Catastrophism board and E.U. boards etc at the CNPS forum.
---
[>TB] Need Data to Help Create Alternative Science Wiki
HTML http://www.thunderbolts.inf
o/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16714&p=119561#p119561
Postby Lloyd » Thu May 11, 2017 4:06 pm
CNPS WIKI
CNPS is starting to create an Alternative Science Wiki, like
Wikipedia, and is calling for anyone to help, especially
scientists, lay scientists, writers, editors, promoters &
supporters. CNPS is the Chappel Natural Philosophy Society,
which was previously the Natural Philosophy Alliance. Their
website is
HTML http://naturalphilosophy.org
.
Bruce Nappi is helping organize discussions on the CNPS forum on
any science topic of interest. The purpose of forum discussion
is to collaborate to produce professional science papers that
will be posted on the CNPS Wiki. Several topics are posted on
the forum, but more can be added on request.
REQUESTING ALTERNATIVE SCIENCE DATA
What data do you feel science overlooks or misrepresents? And
what theory or model does that data support?
Initial preferred topics for discussion are:
Catastrophism: Ancient Global Cataclysm
Mythology: Ancient Myths
Earth Sciences: Global Tectonics
Astronomy: Solar Science
But other science topics may also be discussed.
If you want to post data here, I'll copy it to the CNPS forum.
I'll see [if] it's also convenient enough to post links here.
#Post#: 202--------------------------------------------------
Re: CNPS General Discussion
By: Admin Date: May 21, 2017, 1:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi Bruce. You said: I'm sure others have analyzed the MM
theory. If we could find reports already written about this, it
would save a huge amount of our time.
I doubt if there are any unbiased reports. Plenty of people,
including scientists, are interested in MM's ideas, but they
don't take the time to make a very meaningful report.
I looked briefly at the CNPS Wiki and it looks like it will be
merely a collection of alternative science papers. I don't think
that will be very helpful. I think what would be helpful is
establishing a system for evaluating (while minimizing bias)
theories and claims and publicizing the best ones (and only
links to others so readers could see why they don't make the
grade, which could lead to improving those theories too).
Making the list of essential elements of each theory or claim,
as you suggested, would be important. But then there needs to be
a process for evaluating each element too. I guess I could try
working on such a process on the CNPS Philosophy of Science
forum. Readers could be tested on logic and on knowledge of a
theory's subject matter before they could qualify to evaluate
the essential elements of a theory. Then CNPS could publicize
the best theories. Mainstream theories would need to be
evaluated too, so the public can see why alternatives are
sometimes better.
-----
Sunday, May 21, 2017 2:45 PM
<Bruce
_I agree with the essence of all of your points. So, here's how
I would follow them:
_If you can find ANY MM reports, I think this would be a
benefit. I agree, they will be biased. But I'm looking more for
a "checklist" of critiques rather than final resolutions. We
would also be starting a bibliography on the topic.
_I have the same observation about the Wikis. At the present
time, we don't even have poor histories of prior criticism.
Given we can get a collection of critiques, for any topic, then
we can address your additional concerns.
_Your point about establishing a "system for evaluating (while
minimizing bias) theories and claims" is my next TOP priority. I
actually tried to find such a system by doing a fair search on
the topic of "peer review". Wouldn't you expect someone has
addressed this before??? What I found was terrible. I've
attached my summary of what I found. It is still a feeble
approach. You touched on this again in your last paragraph.
_Your point about then publicizing "the best ones" I think is
good, but only a partial goal. What would be just as helpful is
publishing a summary of what elements of ALL the papers were
good breakthroughs, and what elements appeared to be flaws which
are simply repeats of often repeated flaws.
_Your last paragraph brings up "reader testing". This is a
sensitive issue if we try to grade ALL readers. What I think is
a good solution is to reward great Peer Reviewers. That stays on
the positive side. The other thing that will become an indirect
measure is just the "rejection", by peer reviewers, of things
people say, without calling those members out by name. This
depends on how well we can develop a peer review system and
methodology.
_So, all of these items should be HIGH PRIORITY for us. We can
both test them out in our structured forums (... and I admit,
I'm still way behind getting mine going.)
CNPS Peer Review Guidelines [from web search]
- DRAFT -
_Scientific progress depends on communication of information
that can be trusted. Reviews should be objective evaluations of
the claims presented.
_The core values of peer review are
1. availability – does the reviewer have the time to do the
review by the deadline?
2. expert assessment – does the reviewer have the background to
do the review?
3. transparency – the process is open for review by others
4. impartiality – the review is not biased by social background
of the submitter
5. fairness – the review is not biased by social acceptance of
the science presented
6. integrity – the review is not biased by financial, social,
religious or philosophical background of the reviewer. The
reviewer presents all significant findings, both positive and
negative
_Rules:
_General
_The reviewer will not make ANY personal comments. For example,
it is not appropriate to write: “The author clearly has not read
any Foucault.” Instead, say: “The analysis of Foucault is not as
developed as I would expect to see in an academic journal
article.” Also, be careful not to write: “The author is a poor
writer.” Instead, you can say: “This article would benefit from
a close editing. I found it difficult to follow the author’s
argument due to the many stylistic and grammatical errors.”
_Technical Rigor is expected. Data and arguments are to be
addressed or clarified substantially.
_Reviews must be constructive and be presented in a courteous
tone.
_the reviewer will respect the intellectual independence of the
author. When writing a review, be mindful that you are
critiquing the article in question – not the author.
_Details
_During the review, the reviewer will be expected to do the
following:
1. Mark up the copy. Things that should be marked are:
all important points. Use reference numbers that index the
points for longer discussions made in a separate notes area;
errors in graphs and tables, spelling and grammar,
_Steps
1. Before starting to read, make sure you have:
a. tools to mark the copy. b. a method to make notes as you
read.
The notes should have the following sections: questions; things
that seem to be mistakes;
2. Read the article.
3. Make a simple outline of the article. Write a brief 3 or 4
sentence summary of the article. List its major contributions.
4. Write a draft of the review. If the review is favorable,
write a longer summary highlighting the strengths. The structure
of the review should be as follows:
a. Write out any major criticisms. Begin with the larger issues
and end with minutiae.
b. Some major areas of criticism to consider:
Is the article well-organized?
Does the article contain all of the components you would expect
(Introduction, Methods, Theory, Analysis, etc)?
Are the sections well-developed?
Does the author do a good job of synthesizing the literature?
Does the author answer the questions he/she sets out to answer?
Is the methodology clearly explained?
Does the theory connect to the data?
Is the article well-written and easy to understand?
Are you convinced by the author’s results? Why or why not?
5. Write out any minor criticisms of the article.
6. Address editorial issues; for example: mislabeled tables and
graphics, misspellings and grammar.
7. Review the review.
-----
5/23/17 8:50AM
>Bruce
_I got started on the Photonic Universe forum, including a list
of essential elements of the model. Now I'm trying to start on
the Electrodynamic Universe forum and the Catastrophism forum,
since I have a sense of how to proceed.
_I wanted to sticky a couple threads that I had started before,
but the stick option was no longer available once they were
posted without sticking them, but the stick option was available
by posting a second message in the same thread. So I was able to
stick them, but I had to delete the second post, because you
want just one post each in those threads that I post in
exclusively. So it would be nice if the stick option would
remain after first posting without sticking, instead of with
being available only with the second post.
_Another issue is the date on the threads that I post in
exclusively. They show the date of the first posting. Instead,
they should show the date of the updated posting. Otherwise,
readers will think the thread hasn't been posted to since the
first posting. An example of this is on my thread:
"Electrodynamic Universe - working paper".
_Also, when a reader opens the thread, the date of the first
posting or edit should appear inside, and the last update at the
top, maybe right above or before the first posting date. It
might be good if each update date (not just the last one) were
also listed inside, but not important.
_I'd like to experiment with "peer reviewers". I think any
reader should be able to qualify as one by doing a short
self-test on the forum.
_You said: "... we don't even have poor histories of prior
criticism. Given we can get a collection of critiques, for any
topic, then we can address your additional concerns."
--- Critiques sometimes contain good data, including on logic,
but I don't think they're very important, because they take up
time to review, interpret and discuss. I like to simplify a lot.
Just one reader or peer reviewer is a good start for evaluating
claims. I hope to try doing that before long myself, as a trial.
Each essential element (claim or idea) of a model could be rated
P for 70-100% probable, M for 30-70% probable (M for Maybe), or
I for 0-30% probable (I for Improbable). I think all P ratings
should eventually have explanations included, but wouldn't need
to initially.
--- This simple method could be used for theories of any length.
The sky is blue is a theory. A better theory would be that the
sky is blue a certain percentage of the time etc. Long theories
merely have more claims, each of which can be evaluated
separately.
_You said: ""Your point about then publicizing "the best ones" I
think is good, but only a partial goal. What would be just as
helpful is publishing a summary of what elements of ALL the
papers were good breakthroughs, and what elements appeared to be
flaws which are simply repeats of often repeated flaws.""
--- It's not clear what you mean by "ALL the papers". Will you
explain? The readers' (peer reviewers') evaluations of essential
elements of papers should be made public and we should make it
easy to see which elements are rated P, M, and I, then the ones
with the most P's should move to the Wiki, IMO.
_I think it's also important to prioritize theory topics. Those
that seem most important for the good of humanity and the
ecosystem should have highest priority. Readers or peer
reviewers should be encouraged to evaluate those first. CNPS
should also display them by such priority, IMO.
#Post#: 205--------------------------------------------------
Re: CNPS General Discussion
By: Admin Date: May 23, 2017, 9:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, May 23, 2017 1:37 PM
_Lloyd, I really appreciate your support with this.
_I can't find any way to regulate the "sticky" function other
than turn it on or off. But starting a new focus topic like
P.U.T is where I should set you up with a structured format. It
would be:
_4.1.1.4 Electro-Magnetic Universe and Aethers - summary and
coordination (Your input only - no need to stick this)
4.1.1.4 Electro-Magnetic Universe and Aethers - external inputs
and documentation (Your input only - no need to stick this)
4.1.1.4 Electro-Magnetic Universe and Aethers - Discussion
_The way you have it, others can't edit your posts, but they can
reply to them and mess up your "important" label structure.
_I don't have control of the date labeling. When I open the
page, it shows the creation date. BUT, it also has a note
saying, "last modified xx/yy/zz". If you don't think this is
strong enough, you could add a note in bold at the top of the
page: "LAST UPDATE: xx/yy/zz" . You could also include
separate updates. Decide if this is needed - just another admin
headache. Where it would make sense is on the coordination page.
List the date each "coordination" guideline is posted and dated
entries under a new subheading: COMPLETED.
_I wish my experience with participants was as positive as
yours. On the email string it was hard to find even 5 good peer
reviewers out of 50. Not only are many outright trolls, but most
are also incapable of logical clarity. This is why I am so
interested in your reviewing rules. Were you ever on the email
string? If not, I can put you on for a few days and then get you
off. All that is needed is to have a few troublesome "trigger"
words show up and they will polarize into clans. The word
"relativity" would cause a fire storm; so would "God", which
shows up all the time. Sure we could edit those out, but that
would impose both a heavy editing "hand" and a lot of effort. I
also think your P, M, I rating would result in a wave of
complaints from all those who don't agree. That's why, I was
hoping your review approach would FORCE the group to "resolve"
all the issues to categories like: most probable explanation (7
reviews); clarifications; all dissenting views - a. xxxxxx; b.
xxxxxx etc. At this point, I agree that a high count of
multiple "probable" reviews would give a theory a high place in
a WIKI. But I'd like to see some summary reference to the
dissents.
_When I said, "ALL" the papers, I was anticipating that for some
topic, like Photonic Universe, there would be many theories
submitted. Each would be reviewed. But there would be a lot of
similarities, with variations, among them. For example, in your
"Working Paper", you included a "definition" of "PHOTON: a
particle of a fundamental mass and radius… which is detected as
visible light, or so-called electromagnetic radiation …." I
would contribute a short paper under this topic for Space
Lattice Theory that would challenge this definition. In SLT, for
example, the photon has a very different "definition". It is not
a physical entity, but a dislocation (localized void) in a
structured lattice. HOWEVER, in SLT, dislocations produce all
the properties of mass. So, in your forum on P.U.T., your
definition for photon would get a "probable" rating, and my SLT
concept would show up as a dissenting view. In a forum for SLT,
my photon definition would be "probable" and your definition a
dissenting view. THAT SAID, in yet another place in the forum,
i.e. the DEFINITIONS section, the "classical" photon definition
might be "most probable" and both of our definitions dissents.
_I do agree with your idea of prioritizing based on some scale
of "value". Until we see the response to this, I wouldn't jump
to a simple "humanity and the ecosystem" criterion. Where I
think this is heading is something more like multiple scales.
For example, "Current discussions related to human
sustainability are: 2.1.2.2 Synchronizing Clocks; 2.1.2.4 Twin
Paradox; 3.4 Science at the supernatural boundary etc..
Current discussions on ecosystems: 6. Earth Sciences; 6.1
Catastrophism …etc. " This is easy to do because the lists
would be short.
---
5/23 9 PM
Bruce,
_Re "sticky" function, no problem.
_Re date labeling, I could take care of that manually, if I were
allowed to edit the thread titles in the forums where I moderate
or facilitate.
_You said: "starting a new focus topic like P.U.T is where I
should set you up with a structured format. It would be:
_4.1.1.4 Electro-Magnetic Universe and Aethers - summary and
coordination (Your input only - no need to stick this)
4.1.1.4 Electro-Magnetic Universe and Aethers - external inputs
and documentation (Your input only - no need to stick this)
4.1.1.4 Electro-Magnetic Universe and Aethers - Discussion
_The way you have it, others can't edit your posts, but they can
reply to them and mess up your "important" label structure."
_That would be okay, if you let me edit the thread titles, as I
said above. I'm okay with "Electro-Magnetic Universe and
Aethers" for now, though I think there could be better titles.
I'm less okay with "summary and coordination", and "external
inputs and documentation". I'd rather call the former "working
paper" and the latter "discussion summary and references", or
something like that.
_No, I haven't been on the email string? David said today that
he recieved my membership fee, so does that qualify me now?
Sounds like fun having members who get triggered. I was in Dave
Talbott's private group a few years ago and it was so
frustrating having many of my messages refused, that I quit the
group. So I'm glad you don't censor so much. I'm willing to join
the string. Would I then be allowed to invite members to join
forum discussions?
_Re Space Lattice Theory, do you have the list of essential
elements of the theory? Do you have a forum for it yet? I can
help with it, if you want to do that.
_Do you have time to rate the essential elements of P.U.T.? I
could rate those of SLT as well as the theories I'm working on.
That should give us ideas how to improve the process. By the
way, I suspect that I'd give SLT a lot of M's. If I were to do
such a review or rating, I might discover a key question or
claim that might be most worth your focusing on, if you haven't
already found it.
-----
Wednesday, May 24, 2017 4:38 PM
<Bruce: Re "thread titles", there is no separate control that I
can set for that. You are allowed to edit your posts. So, the
fact that it doesn't let you change the titles is a built in
control. You could delete and repost, but that might not produce
meaningful dates on the posts. I think I can change the titles.
So, I could do that for you if it isn't done often.
_Since I haven't set up the 4.1.1.4 forums, suggest a better
title. But if what you want to change is "summary and
coordination" or "External Inputs and documentation", we should
discuss why. What are the functions of a "working paper"? Why
aren't "summary" in my wording and "discussion summary" in yours
the same? Why isn't "documentation" in mine and "references" in
yours the same?
_Your membership fee is not related to the email string. The
membership fee just makes your participation in the Forum
official. David just made you a Forum member before you paid
your fee because he recognized you. You get on the email string
when someone includes you in the cc: list. You get off when
someone removes you. You don't have any say in it, except to
complain. I'll put you in. But, please, just loiter for a few
days. It's a rat hole because everything will go into the
landfill. Yes, you can ask members to look at specific Forum
topics. They all know about the Forum. So, no need to tell them.
Many participate in both places.
_For Lattice Theory, take a look at
HTML http://www.a3society.org/LatticeTheory
. This has multiple
length versions of the theory. I haven't put it on the forum
because I want to get at least one structured forum going. It
would be a topic that is much more popular like a relativity /
aether test match. I have one. Just haven't had time to launch
it.
_What I would like to try is rating a few P.U.T. elements to
show you the complications I think will arise. What paper can I
try?
-----
5/24 7:33 PM
Hi Bruce. I read part of the email group discussion. Where was
David saying I could invite members to the forum?
_I think you want to have 3 types of threads:
1. "summary and coordination"
2. "External Inputs and documentation" and
3. "discussion".
I think by "summary" you mean "discussion summary". And by
"coordination" I think you mean "coordination on collectively
writing a CNPS wiki paper". I figured that "working paper" makes
that more obvious. And it doesn't seem to be helpful to have the
discussion summary in with the working paper. It's also not
obvious to me yet that a discussion summary is needed. If it IS
needed for some reason, I could maybe just bold the main words
in the discussions, as I started to do.
_I'm not clear on whether "external inputs" would be something
other than "discussion". And "documentation" seems like
presenting lots of paperwork, so I thought "references" would be
clearer and less overwhelming.
_So the thread titles that seem best to me are:
"working paper"; "references"; "discussion"; and "theory
rating".
The first two would be stickied; the last two would not. If
"discussion summary" is needed for some reason, I'd prefer to
put it with "references". I'll discuss "theory rating" below.
_You said: "What I would like to try is rating a few P.U.T.
elements to show you the complications I think will arise. What
paper can I try?"
_Well, I started 3 threads for "theory rating" here:
HTML http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=151
HTML http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=180
HTML http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=181
_Each thread starts like this:
Rate this theory & give reasons for I-ratings (in parentheses).
RATING: [for reader to fill in]
_I (improbable) = under 30% probability
M (maybe) = 30-70% probability
P (probable) = over 70% probability
-----------------------------------
_Spoiler alert: I rated the 3 theories as follows, respectively:
21P, 13M, 1I
9P, 4I
17P, 1M
I included the reasons for my I-ratings.
_The I-ratings could show:
a) what the reader didn't read or understand, or
b) what the theorist needs to explain better, or
c) what needs to be dropped or replaced from the theory.
Readers giving their reasons for I-ratings should be helpful to
theorists.
The M-ratings could show deficiencies too, but the I's should
probably have the theorist's highest priority for addressing.
_The process of rating essential elements goes pretty fast. It
should make it fairly easy for readers/reviewers to rate
theories. It just requires someone to take the time to determine
the essential elements of a theory and display them. Even that
isn't very time-consuming in many cases. I've read a lot of
theories and I can remember some or many of the essential
elements of many of them. It seems like reading the essential
elements of a theory helps the reader to understand it quite a
bit. Maybe the ratings would help theorists improve the list of
essential elements and the definitions.
_My impression is that a streamlined wiki could be developed
pretty quick, if it mainly just showed the essential elements of
any theory or claim, and if it had a way like this for readers
to rate each essential element (and a way to rate the raters).
I'm imagining a dynamic wiki that would be constantly improving,
due to reader and theorist interactions.
_Will you let me know where you post your rating of PUT?
#Post#: 206--------------------------------------------------
Re: CNPS General Discussion
By: Admin Date: May 26, 2017, 7:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thursday, May 25, 2017, 9:33 AM
_Lloyd, I'm only addressing your first two points in this
response. I'll address rating in a followup email.
_Inviting members to the forum: Remember, the email string is a
renegade email environment. NO RULES! David and CNPS have no
authority there. And "as a rule" they avoid it. So, to invite
members, you essentially just go OFF TOPIC! You post an email,
"reply all", and state your goal. For example, "Anyone
interested in this topic might be interested joining XYZ on the
Forum." Also, after a few days, you will have dozens of emails
with different topics. So, go out of order and reply all to the
email with a topic that is closest to what you want to talk
about. Remember, please don't fall into the rat hole.
_Structure:I looked at your 4.1 Photonic Universe set up. Your
suggestions now make
more sense to me, along with your explanations below. I had
never considered using the forum to directly develop a paper. I
always considered it a much larger, CNPS wide event. So, this is
a very good idea for smaller efforts and can be added as an
alternative element of the structured approach.
_Notice, we {two blindfolded researchers communicating by email}
have been examining the elephant from different sides. Let me
expand on your observations and you will see the problem.
_The term "Summary": Yes, by this I did mean "discussion
summary", but not just from the standpoint of content
summarization. More importantly, I viewed it as a running
summary of coordination of the discussion. Think of this more as
a "status report". The goal being, when a new person enters the
discussion, or someone has left for awhile and returned, the
"summary" tells them: 1. what this forum is all
about - its goals, challenges etc.; 2. what has gone on so far
(discussion summary); 3. what issues have been resolved; 4. what
issues are hot now; and 5. what are the current focus
activities. Again, in short, my "summary" is a project "status
report". Item 2, which is what you started to do, does not need
to be a line-by-line summary. Too much work.
_The term "coordination": This did not foresee paper writing. As
such, it was simply coordination of the discussion in an attempt
to resolve specific scientific questions. Any paper that came
out of that, I thought, would be written by the facilitator as a
personal activity, possibly involving others as co-authors.
_The term "external inputs": As part of the facilitation, I
expected the facilitator to bring in material from sources
outside the discussion as "drivers" to focus or promote the
discussion. For example, one discussion on the email string
degraded into an emotional fight about what Einstein believed
and meant about the speed of light. I jumped in (which I only
did infrequently) with a long quotation I cited "verbatim" from
a transcribed presentation that Einstein made. I emphasize
"verbatim" because I had to stay in the discussion long enough
to just get them to acknowledge that they could not make up
their own story about what Einstein "said" when there was
physical history that recorded what he said. In the end, they
ignored me and went back to fighting. This is where the control
of the structured part of the forum can shut this down, without
actually moderating (by deletion) the actual discussion. So, the
external inputs section would collect these intervention
documents. Another group of "external inputs" would be
discussions from other forums brought in by the facilitator
which challenged the forum discussion.
_The term "documentation": I picked this word because the
external "material" could be in any form: papers, speeches,
drawings, graphics, articles, quotes from anywhere including
other forums, books, policies, data tables etc. To me,
"references" seemed to apply just to formal papers and books.
_Possible solution: Here is an approach I think addresses both
of our approaches.
1. If the facilitator wants to produce a paper as the outcome of
the forum discussion, this is stated in the forum launch. 2. An
additional forum entry is made for this, e.g. 4.1.1.4
Electro-Magnetic Universe and Aethers -Working Paper . This can
be formatted (by me during set up) as: open access; moderated;
facilitator only. The facilitator would decide which one. 3.
The term "references" is just as good and easy to incorporate.
What it means would be described in the controlled "Summary"
document. 4. The "external input" function could be merged into
the references but also added directly into the discussion. For
example, if the facilitator (or anyone else) brought in a post
from another forum, they would post it and its citation as part
of the discussion. The facilitator would then grab the citation
for the "reference" section.
---
On May 26, 2017, at 12:55 AM)
Hi Bruce. Your last email was in my spam folder all day along
with a bunch of emails from your email string.
_I thought you had said earlier that the purpose of the
structured forum was to produce papers for the Wiki. If not,
then what is the purpose? Just to have fun?
_You said: "Possible solution:
1. If the facilitator wants to produce a paper as the outcome of
the forum discussion, this is stated in the forum launch."
2. An additional forum entry is made for this, e.g. 4.1.1.4
Electro-Magnetic Universe and Aethers -Working Paper . This can
be formatted ( by me during set up ) as: open access; moderated;
facilitator only. The facilitator would decide which one."
__I think I'd prefer facilitator only for mine. Why wouldn't
each topic in the forum have a Working Paper thread?
_"3. The term 'references' is just as good and easy to
incorporate. What it means would be described in the controlled
'Summary' document."
__Okay, but instead of "Summary", I think I'd prefer "Ongoing
Status Report" or "New & Returning Members, Read This!", if I
understand you.
_"4. The 'external input' function could be merged into the
references but also added directly into the discussion. For
example, if the facilitator (or anyone else) brought in a post
from another forum, they would post it and its citation as part
of the discussion. The facilitator would then grab the citation
for the "reference" section.
__Right. As for the phrase "external inputs", it seemed vague to
me, but I don't know if other people would have that impression.
---
Friday, May 26, 2017 10:39 AM
<Bruce
_There are multiple purposes for the structured forum. Here were
my goals in general order of priority:
_Discuss single topics to break down disagreements among members
around specific issues. CNPS members are strongly divided about
Relativity. Most of this, however, is due to simple language
flaws. If those could be resolved, then doors would open for
serious work.
_Set up structure to improve all discussions. This would include
things like: set up a bibliography for novice members to answer
"resolved" issues without taking up forum effort; set up a
bibliography for "expert" members as the basis for discussion.
They now rely on memory, which they present full of errors.
_Breakdown topics into items that need separate resolution, with
the goal of a larger result ( that might end up with one or more
papers). For example, we are talking about developing a number
of low cost experiments that will resolve the Relativity /
Aether debate once and for all.
_The forum will be the primary mechanism to plan and coordinate
member recruitment, CNPS marketing, promotion of papers, and
expansion of conferences.
_The structured forum will become a new paradigm for
coordinating scientific research. Creating more papers, the way
it is done now, even by academia, is just one more landfill.
_" I think I'd prefer facilitator only for mine." OK. I'll set
up a "closed" forum for you: 4.1.1.4 Electro-Magnetic Universe
and Aethers -Working Paper
_"Why wouldn't each topic in the forum have a Working Paper
thread?" See list above.
_"3. The term 'references' is just as good and easy to
incorporate. What it means would be described in the controlled
'Summary' document." __Okay, but instead of "Summary", I think
I'd prefer "Ongoing Status Report" or "New & Returning Members,
Read This!", if I understand you."
_At this stage of experimentation, I'm open to different wording
for the structured elements for different forums. So, pick out
your titles and the order they should show up in. HOWEVER, make
sure you cover the needed structure issues:
1. A summary of what is going on in the discussion: status
report a. what this forum is all about - its goals, challenges
etc.; b. what has gone on so far (discussion summary); c. what
issues have been resolved and what breakthrough conclusions have
come up; d. what issues are hot now; e. what are the current
focus activities (which are different from d. due to renegade
members); f. what you believe the stumbling blocks to resolution
are.
2. Guidelines - coordination - of what you want the current
discussion to focus on. If you have a real team effort going,
list the assignments.
3. A brief bibliography of key material that sets the foundation
for the discussion. This includes updates as the discussion goes
forward.
4. A mechanism for bringing in outside viewpoints. This can be
merged into the discussion for both you and members. But it also
needs a semi-static document to cite it or directly include the
text, and not rely only on the waterfall discussion.
---
5/26 7:11 PM
Hi Bruce. My reply is in two parts.
_Part 1.
Here is my understanding of your structured forum goals, which I
label A-D, with your quotes in << - >>:
A. Attempt to resolve disagreements among members:
<<Discuss single topics to break down disagreements among
members around specific issues. CNPS members are strongly
divided about Relativity. Most of this, however, is due to
simple language flaws. If those could be resolved, then doors
would open for serious work.>>
B. Set up bibliographies to reduce newbies' questions:
<<Set up structure to improve all discussions. This would
include things like: set up a bibliography for novice members to
answer "resolved" issues without taking up forum effort; set up
a bibliography for "expert" members as the basis for discussion.
They now rely on memory, which they present full of errors.>>
C. Each section develop goals, like doing experiments, writing
papers ... :
<<Breakdown topics into items that need separate resolution,
with the goal of a larger result ( that might end up with one or
more papers). For example, we are talking about developing a
number of low cost experiments that will resolve the Relativity
/ Aether debate once and for all.>>
D. Improve & promote CNPS & scientific research:
<<The forum will be the primary mechanism to plan and coordinate
member recruitment, CNPS marketing, promotion of papers, and
expansion of conferences.
The structured forum will become a new paradigm for coordinating
scientific research. Creating more papers, the way it is done
now, even by academia, is just one more landfill.>>
_My impressions are:
A seems useful.
B seems difficult & of questionable value. We or some of us
could try it and do a survey to say what's worthwhile in the
effort.
C seems most valuable.
D sounds like what the last CNPS forum might be doing. Right?
_Part 2.
You said:
<<At this stage of experimentation, I'm open to different
wording for the structured elements for different forums. So,
pick out your titles and the order they should show up in.
HOWEVER, make sure you cover the needed structure issues:
1. A summary of what is going on in the discussion: status
report
a. what this forum is all about - its goals, challenges etc.;
b. what has gone on so far (discussion summary);
c. what issues have been resolved and what breakthrough
conclusions have come up;
d. what issues are hot now;
e. what are the current focus activities (which are different
from d. due to renegade members);
f. what you believe the stumbling blocks to resolution are.
2. Guidelines - coordination - of what you want the current
discussion to focus on. If you have a real team effort going,
list the assignments.
3. A brief bibliography of key material that sets the foundation
for the discussion. This includes updates as the discussion goes
forward.
4. A mechanism for bringing in outside viewpoints. This can be
merged into the discussion for both you and members. But it also
needs a semi-static document to cite it or directly include the
text, and not rely only on the waterfall discussion.>>
_My impressions are:
1a seems useful and easy enough.
1b-e seem difficult & of lesser value. Readers can do most of
those things themselves.
1f seems possibly useful, but it may be time-consuming & hard to
remember to do.
2 seems okay.
3 seems only slightly useful. This sounds like "Important Files"
or the like on some forums. Maybe the CNPS forum setup will make
the bibliography more convenient than on most forums. But there
should be a survey eventually to ask members how helpful the
bibliography is and whether and how it should be improved (ditto
for the whole forum).
4 seems slightly useful too.
_Let's see if I can come up with thread titles, now that you've
explained your goals more completely. Okay, here are my choices
for thread titles:
1st - for 1a & 1b-f & 2 (all in one thread): purpose, status
report & assignments(?);
2nd - for a wiki working paper: wiki working paper;
3rd - for 3 & 4 (in one thread): bibliography & important
outside viewpoints.
All of those would be stickied in that order and the discussion
section would be unstickied. How's that?
---
Saturday, May 27, 2017 5:33 PM
<Bruce
_This is a good summary of my points. Your selection of titles
covers all of my points plus your working paper. So, let's give
it a shot.
_I notice that you already changed the titles in your section
with the subheading Important threads. That is how I would have
done it, but with 4.1.1.4 numbering. Am I right that you created
the subheadings: Important threads, and Normal Threads, using a
"sticky" function?. I tried logging in as a member to see if I
could reply to these. I was able to. That's what I want to stop
by locking the forums you called "Important", so regular members
can't post in that area - Too many trolls.
_The only title I'm not sure if you want to lock or not is the
Working Paper. I thought you said you wanted to lock it, but I
can't find that discussion. Let me know about this.
_While I generally agree with your summary, there are still a
few comments where I haven't convinced you of the merit. A way
to do that might be for me to participate in your forum. When
the issues come up, if I point them out, I think you will then
see my concerns.
_A few, however, I can address right now:
_Setting up the bibliographies for newbies - yes, this is a
difficult task. But I wouldn't expect any single forum, like
yours, to complete the effort. Over time, however, many forums
making a few contributions each would produce a large impact.
_For example ( and this relates to your MM paper ), there should
not be any confusion about principles like "photons". The MM
paper falls right into this quagmire. So as soon as any member
raises a question about what a photon is, they should be
referred to the Definition section of the Forum - in this case:
8. Definitions - Photon. And why this is a good example is, when
a newbie or newly joining expert jumps to the Photon definition,
what I expect is they will NOT get a simple answer. Instead,
they will be referred to a number of Critical Wiki articles that
show the scientific community, at large, is still very divided
about what photons are. After they read a few articles, they
would return to your forum with a much more open and critical
approach.
_Yes, for approach D, the Work Group section will be involved.
But largely to "coordinate" this goal. The primary work effort,
however, will be for specific structured forums to make the
scientific progress. And, it will be the ability of the
structured approach to break down barriers to progress that will
attract new members.
---
5/27 7:45 PM
Hi Bruce.
_I don't remember using thread titles "Important threads" and
"Normal threads". I guess it's possible.
_Am I right that you've made me facilitator of just these
forums?
3.3.3 The Scientific Method
4.1.1 Electric Universe or Aether
6.1 Catastrophism
6.2 Expansion Tectonics
6.3 Surge Tectonics
_I guess you'll be providing 3 locked threads for each of them
titled:
- purpose, status report & assignments(?)
- wiki working paper
- bibliography & important outside viewpoints
plus an unlocked section titled discussion.
_After you do that, then I can change the titles of some of the
threads that I started and relocate the contents appropriately.
_Which forum/s would you like to post in to help get me
oriented?
_I invited email string members to a thread in 3.3.3.
#Post#: 208--------------------------------------------------
Theory Rating
By: Admin Date: May 31, 2017, 11:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, May 31, 2017 7:25 AM
<Bruce
_OK. I understand your objective. But, for me, I can't do the
rating without having a broader understanding of the theory the
pieces come from. As I said, they appear to be just a totally
disjointed list of physics concepts.
_For example, your first entry is: P Photon: a particle of a
fundamental mass and radius, or multiple thereof. You rated this
P. I'd rate it I. Why? Because the long history of the duality
discussion - particle / wave - has not been resolved. For any
statement that simply sides with a photon being "a particle of a
fundamental mass and radius", but provides no sound explanation,
it has to be labeled "improbable" because there is over 100
years of strong arguments that say it CAN'T be just a particle.
_This is why I don't find value in the a simple rating scale you
are using. It's not the simplicity that's the issue. Here's
another simple system I do think has value:
_Y = yes, I'm interested in discussing further; N = no, I'm
not. At least this system would help locate people to carry an
idea further. I think this Y/N version would actually be an
outcome of your system. Let's say you picked one issue that
scored P on your survey. That doesn't mean everyone who took the
survey would work with you. Those who voted I just wouldn't
participate, producing a de facto N.
_I think this is a typical case where you are "too close" to
your subject. You know it so well. People like me, even with
years of physics experience, are coming into it cold. We need a
lot more background to help you. THAT is what I'm trying to
coach people into doing with the structured method.
_So, point me to a paper on P.U.T. and let keep my test trial
going.
---
.5/31) 11AM)
>Bruce.
_You say you want to "help locate people to carry an idea
further". So in the theory rating thread at
HTML http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=151
I
added this statement: YOUR INTEREST IN DISCUSSING P.U.T. (YES or
NO):
_So here's how that thread starts out now.
-----------------------------------------
Below is the list of Essential Ideas of PUT.
Please rate each idea as I, M, or P:
I (improbable) = under 30% probability
M (maybe) = 30-70% probability
P (probable) = over 70% probability
(& give reasons for I ratings in parentheses)
_WHAT RATING YOU GIVE P.U.T.:
_YOUR INTEREST IN DISCUSSING P.U.T. (YES or NO):
---------------------------------------------------
_What do you think of the objective of building an encyclopedic
list of good alternative theories, explaining each one in about
a paragraph, as a list of essential ideas of each theory?
_Each member on the email string and each other member of CNPS
probably has their own theories. Would it be a good experiment
to have a CNPS forum or section where we can try to list the
essential ideas of each member's main theory? Each theory
listing could include a link to their discussions on the main
forum. The rating method could be an option that readers could
click on.
_You rated the first idea of PUT and you included your reason
for rating it I, which was helpful. It shows that the wording of
the photon idea may need to be improved or another idea may need
to be added to the list of essential ideas. I rated one of the
ideas as I, but that doesn't keep me from having interest in the
theory. Would you mind rating some more of the PUT essential
ideas?
---
6/1 - 11AM
>Bruce.
_I have some comments about the forums.
Here are the main forum sections.
1. CNPS Small Forums (Topics)
2. Relativity
3. Philosophy
4. Universe, Aether and Field Theory
5. Mass, Energy and Forces - Components of the Universe
6. Earth Sciences
7. Human Biology
8. Definitions
9. CNPS Work Groups
_Some members say they can't find things on the forums. Instead
of having many forums in each section, why not let members start
their own threads in any of those 9 sections and let moderators
request moderator-controlled threads when members or mods ask
for them? And maybe let moderators move threads to other
sections in case members start them in the wrong sections.
_I think Human Biology should be changed to Biology; Evolution
should be moved from under Philosophy to under Biology. Is
astronomy/cosmology supposed to go under section 4? I think it
might be good to have section 4 called Astronomy or Cosmology
and section 5 called Physics & Chemistry.
_Have you consulted with any forum experts, regarding optimum
layout as well as attracting new members?
#Post#: 209--------------------------------------------------
BN 5-Part Plan
By: Admin Date: June 2, 2017, 9:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
6/2 9:50 PM
_Hi Bruce. I wanted to start one or two threads in section 1 of
the forums, but I don't see a way to do that? Don't members have
that ability?
_I just now came across your critique of my 8-point scientific
method. You apparently posted it on May 26. I previously came
across the discussion that had been going on about the
scientific method for some time, so I've been getting in late on
these discussions.
_Your critique doesn't seem to say anything much different from
what I had said are problems because many scientists and media
don't really follow scientific method well. I haven't read your
links to Carl Sagan's comments on scientific method, but I'm
very unimpressed with Sagan myself. I believe he was one of the
main supporters of mainstream corporate science lies. I don't
know if you're aware of how much corporate greed has turned
science into fairy tales.
_Your data on repeats of the MM experiment is very interesting.
I'd enjoy hearing exactly what was measured to have the
velocities you quoted.
_And your 5-part idea sounds good for improving science. 1.
Store raw data for public access 2. along with critiques; 3.
Summarize experiments historically and 4. develop better
theories; 5. Self-organize teams to rectify false media claims
to better inform the public. It may help for such teams to be
aware of the problem of corporate greed and deep state dangers
to science.
_Storing raw data & critiques sounds like fun. Do you have a
place to store them? Can the Wiki have a section for raw data? I
think most of the Wiki design will be a waste of effort, if it's
to be based on the Wikipedia model.
---
Monday, June 5, 2017 1:45 PM
_Lloyd, Members can post new Threads, but not "forums". When I
tried to give them that ability, they refused to even look
through the outline to find existing forums that were
appropriate to their new ideas. I have changed the explanation
for the major category to instruct them about this.
_You should have received a direct email telling you I posted
the May 26 reply. If you didn't you may not have had email
notification turned on.
_Your point about me not criticizing your scientific method
outline is correct. That approach is sound. The problems lie
outside that method. Corporate greed is a major part of the
problem, as you say. So, that's why I went into some depth on
how Structured discussion is intended to fix this.
_About the MM experiment repeats, they all used the same
geometry as MM, just adding better sensors, longer path lengths
and changing variables that MM didn't think about. For example,
Miller believed the aether was proved by MM, but it's slow speed
was due to earth-capture. So he did tests a various altitudes,
including high mountain sights. He showed a direct correlation
of measured aether speed with altitude. He also was much more
careful on temperature and pressure issues. All of the data I
uncovered was on-line. I can't quickly find my reference list.
But it should be something for us to put together.
_Monday, June 5, 2017 3:47 PM
_I think the raw data will eventually get stored in many places.
For small amounts, it could essentially be an attachment to the
paper. For huge studies, it may simply be permissions for access
to the current repository. For medium data sets, CNPS has its
own servers. Since CNPS is in control of the Wikis, we should be
able to work that out. But again, I think it will be a referral
to a separate document.
_About the "CNPS Critical Wikis", remember, while they "look"
like a Wiki, and are "composed" using a Wiki document format,
they are a totally different breed of cat because they do NOT
allow public editing. CNPS controls the content.
---
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page